get_install_instructionsReturn deterministic official install/discovery routes for an ECZ-ID product or surface (canonical URLs only; planned Microsoft surfaces carry no URLs).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| product | Yes | Product slug: mcp-trust | agent-trust | developer-trust | resolver | developer-gateway | trustops | mcp-services | msp |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavior: results are deterministic, only canonical URLs are returned, and planned Microsoft surfaces yield no URLs. However, it does not describe the output structure, error behavior, or explicitly confirm there are no side effects, though 'Return' implies a read-only operation.
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 efficient sentence with a parenthetical for edge-case clarification. Every element earns its place: the action, the object, the canonical-URL constraint, and the planned-surface exception.
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 read-like tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it states what is returned and the important special case. The only real gap is that it does not specify the exact response structure, but that is a minor omission given the low complexity.
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 single parameter 'product' is already fully described in the input schema, including the allowed slug values and pattern, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond the phrase 'ECZ-ID product or surface', which is not needed for correct invocation.
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 specific verb ('Return') and a clear resource ('official install/discovery routes for an ECZ-ID product or surface'), plus scoping details ('canonical URLs only; planned Microsoft surfaces carry no URLs'). This makes it clearly distinct from sibling tools like get_resolver_link or find_product without needing to inspect their schemas.
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?
There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus its alternatives. The description never mentions sibling tools or conditions that would route an agent away from this tool. Usage is only implied by the name and the general purpose 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.
Most tools are conceptually distinct, but get_current_state, resolve_identity, and explain_status all orbit the same status/render responsibility and could be misselected without careful reading. The descriptions reduce overlap, but the boundaries are still subtle.
Every tool follows a consistent verb_noun pattern: create_request_to_resolve, explain_status, find_product, get_current_state, get_install_instructions, get_resolver_link, resolve_identity. There is no mixing of conventions or vague ambiguous verbs.
Seven tools is a well-scoped set for an identity-trust utility server. Each tool covers a distinct operation area without bloat, and the count fits comfortably within the expected range.
The domain is covered well: resolution, state retrieval, status explanation, resolver links, request creation, product guidance, and install instructions. Minor gaps exist around request lifecycle management (e.g., checking or cancelling a request), but core workflows are not dead-ended.