One PST result, scored against the BUD/S minimums.
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": {
"id": "<id>"
},
"name": "get_pst_result"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The result id from list_pst_results. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already state readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — the returned result is evaluated against BUD/S minimums — but says nothing about behavior on an invalid or unknown id, nor what fields come back. With annotations doing the safety work, a 3 fits.
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?
Nine words, front-loaded, and every word carries information. It is arguably too terse rather than padded, and the fragmentary construction (no verb) is the only structural weakness.
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 one required parameter, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the definition covers the essentials and even hints at the payload via the BUD/S scoring note. What is missing — error behavior for a bad id and the shape of the returned result — is modest for a simple single-record getter.
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% and the single 'id' parameter is documented there, including its provenance from list_pst_results. The description adds no further meaning about the identifier, so the 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?
The description names a specific resource with a clear cardinality scope ("One PST result") plus an added qualifier ("scored against the BUD/S minimums"), which is enough to tell it apart from list_pst_results. It loses a point because there is no explicit verb — the fetch-by-id nature is only inferable from the single 'id' parameter.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives, even though list_pst_results is the obvious entry point for obtaining an id. The only routing hint lives in the schema's 'id' description ("from list_pst_results"), not in the tool description.
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.