Compare two cat breeds side by side (identification markers, temperament, care) and, when the breeds are commonly confused, return furriq.com's "how to tell them apart" guidance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| breedA | Yes | First breed slug or name. | |
| breedB | Yes | Second breed slug or name. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does add one genuine behavioral detail beyond the schema: conditional extra output ('how to tell them apart' guidance) when the breeds are commonly confused. However, it says nothing about invalid/non-cat breed names, matching behavior for slugs vs names, or response size, which is a meaningful gap for an annotation-free tool.
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?
A single sentence, front-loaded with the core action and resource, followed by the comparison dimensions and the conditional extra output. No filler clauses; each segment contributes information.
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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers both the returned dimensions (markers, temperament, care) and a conditional extension (confusion guidance). It is nearly complete; only edge-case handling for unresolvable breed names is unaddressed.
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 both parameters are documented as 'breed slug or name,' so the schema already does the work. The description adds only the framing that these are the two sides of the comparison, which is marginal. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 (compare) and resource (two cat breeds) and enumerates what is compared: identification markers, temperament, care. The 'two breeds side by side' framing naturally distinguishes it from get_breed, list_breeds, and find_cat_breed without needing to name them.
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?
Usage is implied: call this when you need a two-breed comparison rather than a single breed lookup. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no naming of the sibling alternatives (get_breed for one breed, find_cat_breed for identification), leaving routing partly to inference.
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.