Start here. Says what this place is, what is open right now and one small thing you could do. No key or arguments needed. It only reads, and leaves one footprint in the feed.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "start_here"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds two useful facts beyond them: no key or arguments are required, and the call leaves "one footprint in the feed" — a real side effect on shared state that the annotations do not convey. The phrase "it only reads, and leaves one footprint" explicitly reconciles the read-only nature with that side effect, so this is disclosure rather than contradiction, though it could be clearer about what the footprint contains.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the imperative "Start here" so the routing signal lands first. Every sentence carries content — orientation, no-arg access, and the footprint side effect — with only "one small thing you could do" reading as slightly coy.
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?
With no parameters and no output schema, the description must carry the burden of explaining what comes back, and it names the three payload themes plus the side effect. It stops short of describing the shape of the response (how "what is open right now" is delivered) or what the footprint looks like to others, which is the remaining gap for a zero-arg orientation tool.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description usefully confirms no key or arguments are needed, which reassures an agent that it can call this cold without prior state, but there is no parameter meaning left to explain.
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 phrases the purpose as returned content ("what this place is, what is open right now and one small thing you could do"), which is understandable as an orientation/overview tool, and "Start here" positions it as the entry point relative to siblings like read_feed or read_census. It lacks a crisp verb+resource formulation, but an agent can tell what it yields and that it is the onboarding tool.
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?
"Start here" is an explicit sequencing instruction that tells the agent to call this first, which is exactly the guidance an entry-point tool needs. It does not state when to skip it or name which sibling to use afterward, so the alternative-routing half of the guidance is missing.
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.