Return privacy-safe links for creating a free no-account gallery or a reusable studio.
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": "get_framekeep_start_options"
}
}| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It adds context like 'privacy-safe' and 'free no-account,' but does not disclose potential side effects, return format, or any operational details beyond the act of returning links.
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, focused sentence that starts with the verb and clearly states the output. It contains no filler and is easy to parse at a glance.
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 tool's simplicity (0 params, no output schema), the description is adequate for understanding its purpose. It could define 'gallery' or 'studio' more explicitly, but the core function is clear enough for selection.
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 has zero parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage by default. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but none are required; baseline for 0 params is 4.
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 the specific verb 'Return' and names the resource: 'privacy-safe links for creating a free no-account gallery or a reusable studio.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_framekeep_overview and list_framekeep_public_resources.
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 offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or typical scenarios, leaving usage entirely implicit.
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.