capital_company_askAnswers a question about the user’s team and funds in Capital Company from its records, in Capital Company’s words. Changes nothing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| team | No | The team to act on, by name, only when the user belongs to more than one team; leave it out otherwise | |
| request | Yes | What the user asked for, in their own words | |
| timeZone | Yes | The user’s IANA time zone, such as America/New_York |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / timeZone / descriptionPrevious value: -"The user’s IANA time zone, such as America/New_York; leave it out when the client reports it with the call"New value: +"The user’s IANA time zone, such as America/New_York"Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "request"
-]New value: +[
+ "request",
+ "timeZone"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so 'Changes nothing' largely restates the structured safety profile. The one genuine addition is 'in Capital Company's words', which hints the answer is quoted from records rather than synthesized, but it is not developed.
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?
Two short sentences with the core behavior front-loaded; nothing is padded. 'Changes nothing' is close to redundant with the readOnlyHint annotation, which slightly dilutes an otherwise tight description.
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?
For a read-only Q&A tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the essentials are present. With no output schema, the description does not indicate what the answer looks like (verbatim quotes, sources, scope limits), and no guidance on how the free-text request is interpreted or how far back records are searched.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so team, request, and timeZone are fully documented in the schema, including the conditional rule for supplying team. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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?
States a specific verb+resource: answers a question about the user's team and funds drawn from Capital Company records. It implicitly distinguishes itself from write siblings (create/update/send) by stating it changes nothing, but it never names a sibling like capital_company_conversation or capital_company_reply to clarify the routing boundary.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the read-only Q&A path versus the many mutation siblings. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative named, so the agent must infer the boundary with capital_company_conversation and capital_company_reply.
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.