run_futurepedia_tools_alternativesAlternatives to one Futurepedia AI tool (slug or URL): name, description, pricing, rating, categories and link. 1 point per returned record.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tool | Yes | Tool slug or Futurepedia URL. e.g. midjourney | |
| max_items | No | Max items (up to 8) Default: 8. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds output field list and the per-record credit cost, which is genuinely useful behavior beyond annotations, but says nothing about paging, rate limits, or error cases (e.g. unknown slug).
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?
A single tight sentence front-loads the operation and scope, with the cost clause appended. No filler or redundancy.
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, but the description compensates by listing the returned fields and the cost model. With annotations covering safety and both params documented in the schema, an agent has enough to call it; only edge-case/error behavior is absent.
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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description repeats '(slug or URL)' and implies a single tool, adding no syntax 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+scope: returns alternatives for ONE Futurepedia tool identified by slug or URL, and enumerates the returned fields (name, description, pricing, rating, categories, link). It is clearly distinct from list-oriented siblings like run_futurepedia_tools and run_futurepedia_tools_search, though it never names a sibling to route against.
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?
No explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no pointer to alternatives (e.g. run_futurepedia_tools_search). The only usage-relevant signal is the cost note '1 point per returned record', which informs budget but not tool selection.
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.