Search subnets by name substring. limit max 25.
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": {
"q": "<q>"
},
"name": "search_subnets"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | ||
| limit | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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 behavioral burden, yet it discloses almost nothing: no case-sensitivity, no pagination or ordering behavior, no note on what happens if limit exceeds 25 (clamp or error), and no auth or rate-limit context. The one genuinely useful disclosure is the hard cap 'limit max 25', which is real added value absent from the schema.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, with zero filler. It is perhaps over-terse rather than bloated, and the 'limit max 25' clause reads as a fragment appended rather than integrated.
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?
Return values are covered by the output schema, so the description needn't explain them, but for a tool with 0% parameter documentation and no annotations, the definition leaves meaningful gaps: match semantics, limit-bound behavior, and when to prefer subnet_detail. It is minimally viable rather than complete.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does partially: 'name substring' clarifies that q is a partial-match pattern rather than an exact key, and 'limit max 25' supplies a maximum the schema omits (schema only shows default 10). However it never states the default, whether matching is case-insensitive, or any format for the substring.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Search subnets') plus the matching mode ('by name substring'), so an agent knows precisely what comes back. It does not name or contrast with subnet_detail or subnet_bars, so the sibling boundary is left implicit.
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 phrase 'by name substring' implies you call this when you already have a partial name to look up, which is implied usage guidance. There is no explicit when-not, no mention of the alternative subnet_detail for fetching a known subnet, and no prerequisite or context statement.
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.