The exact rule table this service checks against, the quoted source of every range, and what it explicitly does not claim. Quote it if you need to explain a result.
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": "get_rules"
}
}| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a useful scope trait — that the table includes 'what it explicitly does not claim.' It does not state read-only nature, freshness/versioning of the rule table, or the response format, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.
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 tight sentences, zero filler: the first front-loads what the return contains, the second gives the usage cue. Every clause earns its place.
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 and no annotations, the description should describe the return, and it does so in three concrete clauses (rule table, quoted sources, non-claims). Only minor gaps remain — output format and whether the table is versioned/cached — for a zero-parameter read tool.
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 there is nothing to document and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter description could add value here.
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 names the specific resource with distinctive detail — 'the exact rule table this service checks against' plus quoted sources and explicit non-claims — so an agent can tell it apart from the readings/site/log siblings. However, it is a noun phrase with no verb and never explicitly contrasts itself with any sibling tool, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
'Quote it if you need to explain a result' gives a concrete triggering condition tied to the sibling workflow (check_readings produces results, get_rules explains them). It offers clear context but no explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative.
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.