describe_toolsThe full definitions of tools you name — description and input schema — from the hub's complete tool set, of which this door lists only a part. Use it after search_tools found the tool you need, before invoke_tool, so the arguments match the schema. Read-only, no account, nothing is called. Returns one definition per name, and says which names are unknown.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| names | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them: 'no account, nothing is called' and the handling of unknown names ('says which names are unknown'), which is behavior not expressed in the structured fields.
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?
Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns before the usage guidance. Little waste, though the 'this door lists only a part' clause is slightly incidental.
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-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers return shape ('one definition per name') and edge behavior (unknown names), which is enough for correct invocation. Minor gap: no note on whether names is bounded or how duplicates are handled.
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% for the single 'names' array, so the description must carry the meaning. It clarifies that names are tool names and that one definition is returned per name with unknown names reported, but it doesn't specify array syntax, limits, or name format. Partial compensation, so a middling score.
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 and resource — returns the full definition (description + input schema) of named tools — and explicitly positions itself against siblings search_tools and invoke_tool. The scoping note that the hub's tool set is larger than this door's list adds precision.
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?
Gives explicit sequencing: use after search_tools has found the tool, before invoke_tool, so arguments match the schema. This names both the preceding and following alternatives plus the condition selecting this tool.
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.