JOB B helper: tag gaps worth filing sealed work into.
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": "demand"
}
}| 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?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails: 'tag' hints at a mutation, but nothing is said about what gets tagged, where the tag is persisted, whether it is reversible, or what permissions are needed. Only the noun 'helper' gives any sense of its role.
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?
It is a single short sentence, but brevity here is under-specification rather than conciseness: the front-loaded 'JOB B helper' label consumes the opening with an undefined codename and leaves no room for actionable detail.
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 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is the agent's only source of truth, and it does not convey what the tool does to the system or when invoking it is appropriate. A zero-argument tool could have been described completely in one clear sentence, but this one is not.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to carry; the baseline for an empty schema applies. Nothing in the description misdescribes or over-promises parameter behavior.
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 names a verb ('tag') and an object ('gaps worth filing sealed work into'), but the vocabulary is internal shorthand: 'JOB B' is never defined and 'sealed work' is opaque. An agent cannot determine what resource is actually modified or what this tool produces.
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?
'JOB B helper' implies this is one step in a larger workflow, which is a weak usage cue, but no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is stated. None of the sibling names (bootstrap, discover, status, unlock, etc.) are referenced to route the agent.
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.