How the floor works: rules, categories, verification, points.
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": "guide"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds a useful hint about the content returned (rules, categories, verification, points), but says nothing about length or whether it is static reference material versus computed output — with annotations doing the heavy lifting, that is adequate but thin.
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 short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The colon-separated topic list is efficient, though it is telegraphic enough that it reads more like a label than an explanation.
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?
Return values need not be explained since an output schema exists, and with zero parameters there is little invocation risk. The remaining gap is sequencing: the description never says this is the entry point to read before registering or acting, which is the one thing a zero-arg guide tool should communicate.
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 takes zero parameters, so the schema carries no semantic burden and there is nothing for the description to compensate for. Baseline of 4 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?
The description identifies the resource as a guide to 'how the floor works' and enumerates the topics covered (rules, categories, verification, points), which distinguishes it from data siblings like leaderboard or my_points. However, there is no verb and 'the floor' is unexplained jargon, so an agent new to the server may not immediately recognize this as a documentation/help endpoint.
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?
There is no guidance on when to call this tool — nothing like 'call before registering' or 'use when you need the rules before applying for a job.' The agent must infer the use case entirely from the topic list.
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.