dp_commercial_describe_platformExplain what DigitalPublic does for humans and AI agents.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| locale | No | es |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| data | Yes | ||
| error | Yes | ||
| links | Yes | ||
| version | Yes | ||
| evidence | Yes | ||
| nextAction | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "data": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {},
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "error": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {},
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "evidence": {
+ "items": {},
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "links": {
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "propertyNames": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "nextAction": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "ok": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "version": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "ok",
+ "data",
+ "error",
+ "nextAction",
+ "links",
+ "evidence",
+ "version"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds some context by indicating the response is aimed at both humans and AI agents, but it does not describe any behavioral details beyond that.
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 superfluous content. It earns its place by stating the tool's core purpose clearly and economically.
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?
Given the simplicity of the tool, the presence of an output schema, and annotations covering idempotence and read-only behavior, the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks usage guidance and any clarification of the locale parameter, leaving minor but real 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?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention the 'locale' parameter at all. Since the description was expected to compensate for the missing schema descriptions, it fails to add any parameter-level meaning, even though the single parameter is simple and optional.
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 uses a clear verb ('Explain') and identifies the resource ('DigitalPublic'), making the basic purpose understandable. It does not explicitly differentiate from the many sibling tools, but the general overview scope is implied by the name and description.
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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like dp_commercial_get_company_profile or dp_commercial_list_use_cases. There are no when-to-use conditions, exclusions, or references to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.