Devuelve el alcance, entregables y proceso de un servicio publico de AtexRadio por slug.
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": {
"slug": "<slug>"
},
"name": "get_service"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose what the payload contains (scope, deliverables, process), which is valuable given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about behavior when the slug is unknown or invalid, nor whether results are cached/static.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, zero filler. It is arguably too terse for a tool with no annotations, but nothing in it is wasted.
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 simple one-param read tool the description covers what is returned, which compensates for the absent output schema. It falls short on slug origin/format and error behavior, the two things an agent actually needs to invoke it reliably.
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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter has no description in the schema. The description only restates that the key is a 'slug' (matching the schema property name) without explaining format, source, or whether it is an ID versus a human-readable path segment.
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?
Specific verb ('Devuelve') plus a specific resource ('alcance, entregables y proceso de un servicio publico de AtexRadio') and the lookup key ('por slug'). An agent can distinguish it from get_product or search_services, though the description never names a sibling explicitly.
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?
No statement of when to use this instead of search_services or get_product, and no prerequisites. The phrase 'por slug' weakly implies a slug must already be known (e.g. from search_services), but the agent must infer that.
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.