The full guide for one tool, free and not metered: its complete description (edge cases, every rule, examples), every parameter's full description and the fields it returns. Each tool's listed description is its short contract; read this when you need the rest.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tool | Yes | A tool name from tools/list, e.g. relationships. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnly/destructive/openWorld annotations, the description adds that the call is 'free and not metered', which matters for an agent deciding whether to spend a call on documentation. It also discloses the shape of the response (description, per-parameter text, return fields). No contradictions with annotations.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the payoff (what you get) and closed with the decision rule (short contract vs. the rest). The 'free and not metered' aside earns its place as a cost signal, and there is no filler.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, yet the description still summarizes them at a useful level. For a one-parameter read-only documentation tool, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.
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?
There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('A tool name from tools/list, e.g. relationships'). The description adds no further constraint on the argument, such as whether unknown names error or how names outside tools/list are handled, so it does not go 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 states a specific verb+resource: it returns the full guide for one named tool, enumerating what that guide contains (complete description with edge cases and examples, full parameter descriptions, returned fields). It is unmistakably a documentation-lookup tool rather than a domain tool, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling tools it documents.
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 gives a clear trigger: the listed description of each tool is only its 'short contract', so read this 'when you need the rest'. That tells the agent when to escalate from the tool list to this tool. It stops short of saying when it is unnecessary (e.g. simple calls that the short contract already covers).
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.