Get the full USASpending glossary of acquisition + spending terms.
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": "get_glossary"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| limit | No |
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the glossary is 'full' (i.e., a complete listing rather than a filtered lookup), but says nothing about the fact that results are paginated via page/limit, which materially affects how an agent calls it.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is part of why pagination and sibling differentiation are missing.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and for a simple reference-data tool the description is nearly sufficient. The remaining gap is the unstated pagination behavior implied by the limit=50 default, which matters for a tool claiming to return the 'full' glossary.
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% — both page and limit appear only as bare integers with defaults. The description does not mention pagination at all, so nothing compensates for the undocumented parameters, and an agent could wrongly assume a single call returns the entire glossary.
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 ('Get the full USASpending glossary of acquisition + spending terms'), which is more precise than the bare name. However, it never acknowledges the sibling autocomplete_glossary, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone whether this is the browse-all tool or the search tool.
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 guidance on when to use this versus autocomplete_glossary, nor any prerequisite or context. The word 'full' hints at a bulk retrieval but the description leaves the agent to infer that autocomplete_glossary is the lookup-by-term alternative.
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.