datailo_tool_schemaThe full input schema for one tool of an enabled service, and how to call it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tool | Yes | ||
| service | Yes | ||
| session | No | The `session` value datailo_connect_verify returned. Pass it on every Datailo call in this conversation; omit it when the user connected with Sign in (OAuth) or a key. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / session / descriptionPrevious value: -"The `session` value datailo_connect_verify returned, when this client keeps no connection session. Pass it on every Datailo call in this conversation; omit it when the user connected with Sign in (OAuth) or a key."New value: +"The `session` value datailo_connect_verify returned. Pass it on every Datailo call in this conversation; omit it when the user connected with Sign in (OAuth) or a key."Input schema / properties / sessionAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "description": "The `session` value datailo_connect_verify returned, when this client keeps no connection session. Pass it on every Datailo call in this conversation; omit it when the user connected with Sign in (OAuth) or a key.",
+ "title": "Session"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the notion of 'enabled service' and 'how to call it', which provides some context, but it doesn't disclose return format, error behavior, or authentication nuances. Given the annotations, a 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise and to the point, though it could be slightly expanded to include critical details without becoming verbose.
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?
This is a meta-tool with no output schema, so the description should clarify what the returned schema looks like and how to use it. The phrase 'and how to call it' is vague and doesn't specify the return structure. It also doesn't explain the relationship to other Datailo tools, making it incomplete for an agent to use effectively.
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?
With schema coverage at only 33% (only 'session' has a description), the description carries little burden. However, it fails to explain what 'tool' and 'service' mean or how they combine to identify the target tool. The description says 'for one tool of an enabled service' but doesn't elaborate on the parameters, leaving the agent to guess.
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 clearly states it provides the full input schema for one tool of an enabled service, and how to call it. The verb 'schema' and resource 'tool' are specific, and the mention of 'enabled service' hints at a prerequisite. It distinguishes from siblings like datailo_tools (which likely lists tools) and datailo_invoke (which calls them), though it could be more explicit about the contrast.
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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't explain that this should be used to fetch a schema before invoking a tool, nor does it reference any sibling tools. The agent is left to infer the usage context.
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.