Returns the first of five steps and a started value to send back with each answer.
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": "trail_start"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states it returns data but does not clarify whether this is a pure read operation, whether it has side effects (e.g., starting a session), or any authentication/state requirements. The tool appears read-only but this is not explicitly stated, leaving ambiguity.
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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and key outputs. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be slightly more structured to highlight the two return components (steps and started value). No wasted words.
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 output schema, the description must explain the return format, but it only says 'first of five steps' and 'started value' without detailing what a step looks like or the structure of the started value. This is insufficient for an agent to know exactly what to expect. Additionally, it doesn't clarify if there are any prerequisites or side effects.
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, so the schema fully covers them (100% coverage). The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not detract from that.
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 clear action: 'Returns the first of five steps and a started value'. It identifies the resource (steps and a started value) and implies a starting point for a trail. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like trail_answer, but the mention of 'first' and 'send back with each answer' clarifies its role as an initiation step.
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 implies usage: call this first to obtain a value to send with subsequent answers. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools (e.g., trail_answer for submitting answers). The guidance is implicit rather than explicit, which is acceptable but not fully fleshed out.
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.