Read supplier disclosures, evidence availability and purchasing checks. This is not an independent endorsement.
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_trust_profile"
}
}| 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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuine piece of non-structured context — 'This is not an independent endorsement' — which sets expectations about trustworthiness of the data, but says nothing about return shape, data freshness, or scope.
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?
Two short sentences, zero padding, with the substance (what is read) front-loaded and the caveat last. Every clause earns its place.
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 no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the full burden of explaining what comes back, and it only sketches the categories without indicating scope (whose profile) or format. Adequate but leaves real gaps for an agent deciding whether to call it.
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?
Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to document; baseline 4 applies. Schema coverage is nominally 100% by vacuity.
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 (Read) and the resource components it returns: supplier disclosures, evidence availability, purchasing checks. No sibling covers a trust profile, so it is distinguishable, but the object is ambiguous with zero parameters — it never says whether this is the caller's own profile or a supplier's.
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?
Provides no when-to-use context and names no alternatives among the nine siblings. The only usage-adjacent note is the disclaimer about endorsement, which is interpretive rather than routing guidance.
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.