hub_get_supplierOne supplier in full: contact details, address, notes, how many catalogue items it is linked to and how many of its purchase orders are still open. Does NOT list the items themselves or the orders — those are get_supplier_items and get_purchase_orders (filter it by this supplier id).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| supplierId | Yes | Supplier id from get_suppliers — not a name |
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 destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing that the response includes aggregate counts (linked items, open POs) rather than just static fields, which tells the agent it gets summary data without extra calls.
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?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by the exclusion/alternative routing. Zero filler.
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 output schema, the description must convey the return shape, and it does so credibly (fields plus counts) and routes the agent to siblings for detail. It leaves minor gaps such as id format or empty-result behavior, but nothing blocking for a single-entity read.
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 100% and the single parameter already carries its own 'from get_suppliers — not a name' guidance. The description adds no additional syntax, format, or lookup semantics, so baseline 3 applies.
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 and resource (get one supplier) and enumerates the exact payload: contact details, address, notes, linked-catalogue-item count and open-PO count. It is immediately distinguishable from hub_get_suppliers (plural list) and the item/order siblings named in the same sentence.
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?
Explicitly states what the tool does NOT return and names the two alternatives (get_supplier_items, get_purchase_orders) with a filter hint for the latter. It stops short of saying when to reach for this versus hub_get_suppliers when the agent doesn't yet know the id.
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.