get_sedeHistory, sections and sources of a Sede Dadaville by slug or name.
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": {
"slug": "<slug>"
},
"name": "get_sede"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that the payload includes history, sections and sources, which is mild but real context. It says nothing about not-found behavior or response shape.
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 short sentence with no filler, correctly front-loaded with the returned content. Slightly penalized because the brevity comes at the cost of the accuracy issues noted above.
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-only tool with no output schema, the description at least names what comes back. Missing are the required-vs-optional truth about the identifier and any behavior on a miss, which matters given the schema is undescribed.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage the description must carry the parameter burden, and it does the opposite: it says 'by slug or name' while the schema exposes only a required 'slug' string. This creates a phantom 'name' argument and implies optionality that does not exist.
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 it retrieves a 'Sede Dadaville' with history, sections and sources — a specific resource and content set. But 'Sede Dadaville' is unexplained jargon and the description does nothing to distinguish it from siblings like list_sedi or get_ecosistema; an agent must infer that this is the single-item detail fetch vs. a list.
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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of the obvious alternative (list_sedi) for enumerating sedi, and no stated preconditions. The agent gets a purpose but no routing logic.
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.