add_containerAdd a container to the baker's Loafy account with its empty weight in grams, so Loafy can take it off when dough is weighed in it. Returns it with its id and a link. Needs the baker's Loafy account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The container's name, e.g. "Glass bowl". | |
| notes | No | Notes on the container. | |
| weight_grams | Yes | The empty container's weight in grams. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive, non-idempotent write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the return shape ('Returns it with its id and a link') and an account prerequisite. It does not mention error/duplicate behavior, which would be the natural next step for a non-idempotent create.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by return info and the prerequisite — well ordered and free of filler. Slightly verbose but every sentence carries information.
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?
No output schema exists, and the description fills that gap by naming the returned id and link; all three parameters are schema-documented and the auth prerequisite is stated. Complete enough for a simple create tool, with only minor omissions around failure cases.
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 name, notes, and weight_grams are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the weight parameter's meaning ('its empty weight in grams') but adds no syntax, bounds, or format detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb + resource ('Add a container to the baker's Loafy account') and explains the domain purpose ('so Loafy can take it off when dough is weighed in it'). The resource noun 'container' cleanly distinguishes it from add_starter, update_container, and list_my_containers without needing to name them.
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?
Usage is implied by the purpose statement, and the prerequisite 'Needs the baker's Loafy account' is a genuine contextual hint. However there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not, and no reference to alternatives like update_container for modifying an existing one.
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.