No authentication needed. Search synthetic customer-support cases in Chinese or English. Not private customer data or verified policies.
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": "list_public_cases"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that, including that no authentication is needed and that the data is synthetic and not private or policy-verified.
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 no filler. The no-auth requirement is front-loaded, and the data-scope disclaimer adds useful clarification without bloating the 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 simple public read-only listing tool, the description covers access and data nature well. However, because there is no output schema and the description does not mention pagination or return-value shape, an agent may still be uncertain about cursor/limit semantics and what a case entry looks like.
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 for undocumented parameters. It implies q is a search query supporting Chinese or English, but it says nothing about limit or cursor behavior, leaving two of three parameters underspecified.
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 a specific action ('Search') and resource ('synthetic customer-support cases'), and notes the language scope. It also explicitly says the data is not private or verified, which distinguishes this public-cases tool from anything policy- or privacy-related.
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 clear context for when to use the tool: when searching public synthetic support cases with no authentication. It does not explicitly name alternatives like get_public_case or list_public_feedback, but the 'Not private customer data or verified policies' phrasing helps an agent avoid misuse.
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.