geode_dns_get_ownerLook up the account that owns a Geode DNS name. Read-only; no signature. Optional caller: the account whose view to read (for caller-dependent results).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | UTF-8 text, at most 512 bytes; no control or invisible characters | |
| caller | No | Optional account address (SS58) to run the query as |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only' is partly redundant. However, 'no signature' discloses the authentication/signing requirement and the caller clause notes that results may be caller-dependent, adding behavioral context beyond the annotations.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, with the read-only caveat and the caller explanation following. No filler or repetition.
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 single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description conveys what is returned (the owning account) and the caller semantics. It stops short of describing the return shape or the not-found case, but nothing critical for calling it correctly is missing.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a conceptual detail for `caller` not present in the schema ('the account whose view to read (for caller-dependent results)'), clarifying why the optional parameter changes output.
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 (look up) and resource (the account that owns a Geode DNS name), which is clearly distinguishable in meaning from sibling geode_dns_get_address. It does not explicitly name a sibling to route against, but the 'owner' framing is specific enough that an agent can tell what it returns.
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 gives some context ('Read-only; no signature') but never states when to use this versus geode_dns_get_address or the mutation siblings (register/set_address/transfer). Usage is only implied by the read-only lookup framing.
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.