list_sediThe historic residences documented as Sedi Dadaville.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_sedi"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds context regarding the nature of the returned data ('historic residences') which is useful, especially as the annotations only cover safety (readOnlyHint). This specific data type is valuable behavioral context.
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 a single, impactful sentence that is highly concise and directly tied to the resource being managed, demonstrating zero wasted words.
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?
Despite having no parameters, the definition is too thin. Without an output schema, the agent has no idea what the result looks like (e.g., a list, a summary, a complex object), making it insufficiently 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?
The input schema has zero parameters, meaning the schema coverage is 100%. Following the rule for zero parameters, the baseline score of 4 is maintained.
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 clearly states the function of the tool—to list historic residences—and ties it specifically to the resource name 'Sedi Dadaville.' This allows the AI to distinguish it from generic listing or retrieval tools like get_sede.
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 definition is a declarative statement of content rather than a guideline. It does not suggest when to use this tool versus others in the sibling list, nor does it define the scope (e.g., only specific types of residences).
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.