Read the client portal share URL for a project
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": {
"projectId": "<projectId>"
},
"name": "readClientLink"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectId | 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 burden: it implies a read-only lookup but says nothing about whether a share link must already exist, what happens if none is configured, or any permission requirements. A single clause of failure-mode context would materially change how an agent calls this.
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 short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Brevity is appropriate for a single-parameter read tool, though the space saved could have carried failure-mode or alternative-tool guidance.
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-parameter read with no output schema, the description covers the basics, but it omits the existence/precondition behavior of the share link and any context on what the returned URL is for. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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% for the single required 'projectId', so the description must compensate. 'For a project' weakly implies the parameter is a project identifier but adds nothing about format or where the ID comes from.
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 ('Read') and resource ('client portal share URL for a project'), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling getClientView, which sounds like a closely related client-facing read.
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 indication of when to use this versus getClientView or any other sibling, and no prerequisites stated. The agent must infer usage entirely from the one-line purpose.
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.