Tool selection help: examples and citations.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "start_here"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that — no indication of what content is returned, how examples are structured, or what citations refer to.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short fragment with no wasted words, but it is arguably too terse for a meta-tool and reads more like a label than a front-loaded explanation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although there are no parameters and an output schema exists, the description leaves key practical questions unanswered: what examples it contains, what the citations reference, and how an agent should act on its output. For a tool intended to orient agents among 25+ siblings, this is materially incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter semantics to clarify. Baseline 4 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies this as a tool-selection helper that provides examples and citations, which distinguishes it from the domain-specific siblings. However, it is a fragment lacking a clear verb and does not state what the tool actually returns or how it helps, leaving the purpose only loosely defined.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'Tool selection help' implies this should be used when an agent is unsure which sibling tool to pick. But there is no explicit 'call this first' instruction, no when-not guidance, and no named alternatives, so the usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.