Consume today's meter grant: fixed fixture, one count request, the task's bounded inference attempts (cache_double_probe two; loop_cost_curve six; invalidator_matrix three). Needs enabled funding. Never auto-retry; read the receipt after uncertainty.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| day | Yes | ||
| task | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / taskAdded value: +{
+ "enum": [
+ "cache_double_probe",
+ "loop_cost_curve",
+ "invalidator_matrix"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses the key behavior: it consumes today's meter grant, has bounded per-task attempt counts, requires funding, and must not be auto-retried. This goes well beyond a generic mutation warning and tells the agent how to behave after an uncertain outcome.
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?
The description is compact and front-loaded with the core action, and every clause contributes guardrails or parameter detail. The parenthetical list and phrases like 'fixed fixture' are dense, but the overall length is appropriate.
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?
It covers prerequisites, side effects, per-task limits, and post-call behavior, which is substantial for a two-parameter tool. However, with no output schema it never states what the call returns or how to distinguish success from failure, and 'fixed fixture'/'one count request' remain undefined.
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 coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by mapping each task enum value to its dedicated attempt budget (two/six/three) and ties 'day' to 'today's' grant. It does not explicitly define the day parameter's role or format beyond that clue, leaving some room for interpretation.
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 opening 'Consume today's meter grant' names a concrete verb and resource, and the three task variants are listed, making it distinguishable from get_meter/get_meter_receipt siblings. However, 'fixed fixture' and 'one count request' are unexplained jargon, so the underlying operation is not fully transparent.
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?
The description gives clear operating context: it requires enabled funding and instructs the agent to never auto-retry and to read the receipt after uncertainty. It does not explicitly compare against alternative tools or state when-not-to-use, but for a grant-consuming action these are sufficient guardrails.
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.