Busca servicios de AtexRadio en Venezuela (repuestos, programacion de radios, asesoria de flotas y soporte).
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": {
"query": "<query>"
},
"name": "search_services"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no matching behavior (keyword vs semantic), no result limit, no indication of what a result contains (service name, provider, contact, location), and no empty-result behavior. Only the geographic scope (Venezuela) is added context.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the domain and scope come first. Slightly underspecified rather than verbose, which is the opposite failure mode but keeps it efficient.
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 one-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description establishes domain and geography but leaves the agent guessing about query construction and result shape. Adequate to identify the tool, not quite enough to invoke it confidently on the first try.
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 required parameter (query) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about it — no guidance on whether it accepts free-text Spanish terms, category names from the parenthetical list, or provider names. It fails to compensate for the documentation gap.
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 states a specific verb ("Busca") and resource ("servicios de AtexRadio en Venezuela") and enumerates the covered service categories (repuestos, programación, asesoría de flotas, soporte). It is clearly distinguishable from search_products/search_guides by domain, though it never explicitly contrasts with the sibling get_service or the generic search.
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?
Usage is only implied: the category list hints at what kinds of queries belong here, but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over get_service (single-service lookup) or search_products (parts lookup), and no exclusions or prerequisites. The agent must infer the routing from the topic words alone.
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.