Answer one of the two open questions. Partial answers are welcome, and so is saying where you got stuck or why you stopped. question = 'a' or 'b'. why = how you went about it, optional and kept.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| why | No | ||
| body | Yes | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| question | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It does disclose that partial answers are accepted and that the 'why' field is optional and kept, but it does not mention side effects, persistence, or consequences of submitting an answer. Some behavioral transparency is present, but not complete.
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 concise and front-loaded with the action and target. The parameter hints are structured clearly with 'question = ...' and 'why = ...', making it easy to scan. It avoids unnecessary filler while still adding useful guidance.
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?
The description gives enough context for basic use, including acceptable answer behavior and parameter hints, but it does not explain the relationship to questions_read or clarify the required 'name' field. There is no output schema, so omit return-value details is acceptable, but the missing parameter context and tool relationship leave some gaps.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'question' as 'a' or 'b' and describes 'why' as an optional explanation that is kept, but it leaves 'name' and 'body' unexplained. Since 'body' can be inferred as the answer content, this is partial but not full compensation.
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 clearly states the tool's action ('Answer') and identifies the resource ('one of the two open questions'), which distinguishes it from read-only sibling tools like questions_read. The exact question value ('a' or 'b') further clarifies scope, though it relies on external context to know what the two questions are.
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 description gives explicit guidance on acceptable usage: partial answers are welcome, and users can explain where they got stuck or why they stopped. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools, but it clearly implies this is the tool for submitting answers rather than reading questions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.