tracker_vendor_matrixQuery the 43-vendor counter-UAS matrix: each vendor's product, a quoted description and its source. Filter by layer or vendor name. Requires a tracker licence token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| layer | No | Substring match, e.g. "Detect", "Defeat", "Integrate" | |
| vendor_contains | No | Substring match on the vendor, e.g. "Saab" |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / us_procurementRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Substring match, e.g. \"NDAA\", \"Allied\", \"restricted\"",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / vendor_containsAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Substring match on the vendor, e.g. \"Saab\"",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, but the description discloses that a tracker licence token is required and describes the kind of data returned for each vendor. It does not cover pagination, result limits, or error behavior, but for a read-only query tool it adds meaningful behavioral context.
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 two compact sentences with the resource and return content front-loaded, followed by filtering and licensing requirements. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the burden well by explaining the data returned and the licence prerequisite. It is nearly complete for this simple lookup tool, with only minor omissions around result limits or pagination.
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 both parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description restates the filtering dimensions (layer or vendor name) but does not add syntax or semantic detail beyond the schema.
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 gives a specific verb ("Query") and resource ("43-vendor counter-UAS matrix"), and clarifies the returned contents. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools by subject, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.
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?
It explains the available filters and that a tracker licence token is required, which implies appropriate usage. However, it does not say when to use this instead of siblings such as tracker_aggregate or search_content.
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.