Read a product-feedback receipt, current review state, rationale and implementation evidence.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"feedbackId": "<feedbackId>"
},
"name": "get_feedback"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| feedbackId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Read' implies read-only, but it says nothing about authorization requirements, behavior for an unknown or malformed feedbackId, or whether results are cached/paginated. It also omits return shape details an agent would want.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the enumeration of outputs makes it slightly dense rather than maximally scannable.
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 one-param read tool with no output schema, the description usefully sketches the return content (receipt, review state, rationale, evidence). However, it leaves parameter meaning and usage conditions entirely to the schema and name, so it is only minimally complete.
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% and the description never mentions feedbackId or its required 'fb_' + 25-char format. The only param is documented solely by the JSON schema pattern, so the description adds no semantic 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?
States a specific verb (Read) and resource (product-feedback receipt) and enumerates the returned content (review state, rationale, implementation evidence). This distinguishes it from list_feedback and submit_feedback, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.
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 guidance on when to use this versus list_feedback or get_finding, and no prerequisites (e.g., needing a known feedbackId). The agent must infer that this is the single-item counterpart to list_feedback from the name alone.
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.