Public teaser + trust signals. reconstructUsd is a filer estimate.
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": {
"id": "<id>"
},
"name": "preview"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that output includes 'trust signals' and warns that 'reconstructUsd is a filer estimate,' but it omits whether the tool is read-only, what permissions are needed, and how errors or missing IDs are handled.
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 definition is short but cryptic and front-loads an ambiguous noun phrase rather than a clear action statement. The second sentence introduces reconstructUsd without enough context to make the caveat useful.
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 tool with a required ID, no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description is far too thin. It provides some output-related hints but leaves the core contract—what ID to supply and what exactly is returned—undocumented.
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 schema has one required parameter, id, with 0% description coverage. The description never explains what the id identifies or what format it expects, so parameter meaning is entirely absent.
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 says 'Public teaser + trust signals,' which hints at output content but never states what is being previewed or what operation is performed. The tool name 'preview' is generic, and the description does not distinguish it from siblings like example, template, or file.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool, what preconditions exist, or which sibling tools are alternatives. The phrase 'Public teaser' faintly implies a public-facing preview, but the agent must infer everything else.
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.