The static machine-readable feeds every network site publishes (JSON, APIs.json, zero-auth) — the no-key alternative to this API.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| context | No | Optional: why you are asking. One sentence — the task you are trying to complete, or what you expect to get back. Never included in the answer and never used to rank; it is read only when a result turns out to be wrong, which is when knowing the intent is what makes the report actionable. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / contextAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Optional: why you are asking. One sentence — the task you are trying to complete, or what you expect to get back. Never included in the answer and never used to rank; it is read only when a result turns out to be wrong, which is when knowing the intent is what makes the report actionable.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: 'zero-auth' tells the agent no credentials are needed, and 'static' signals the content is not dynamically generated — useful details not present in structured fields.
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 compact sentence with no filler, and the distinguishing trait (no-key alternative) lands at the end where it can route the agent. It is efficient, though a leading verb would make it more immediately parseable.
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 single-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers roughly enough: it names the content formats and the auth posture. It still doesn't say what a caller receives structurally (list of feed URLs? feed bodies?) or what 'network site' scopes, leaving a modest gap for an agent deciding 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?
There is one optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents 'context'. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline 3 correct.
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 identifies the resource (static machine-readable feeds: JSON, APIs.json) and a distinguishing trait (zero-key alternative), but it is written as a noun phrase with no explicit verb, and 'this API' is a self-referential shorthand that doesn't clearly resolve. An agent can guess it retrieves feeds, but the phrasing is indirect.
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 clause 'the no-key alternative to this API' implies a selection condition — use this when you cannot or do not want to authenticate. However, it names no sibling tools and gives no explicit when-not guidance, leaving the agent to infer the routing.
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.