One convention: its dimensions and what each means, the trunk fields, how many listings use it, and examples from the store.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The convention's name, e.g. 'local-services'. | |
| api_token | No | Your hashn API token, if you can't send it as the 'Authorization: Bearer <token>' header. Omit it when the header is set. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / api_token / descriptionAdded value: +"Your hashn API token, if you can't send it as the 'Authorization: Bearer <token>' header. Omit it when the header is set."Input schema / properties / name / descriptionAdded value: +"The convention's name, e.g. 'local-services'."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the returned content (dimensions, trunk fields, counts, examples), which is useful given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about auth handling, error cases, or the meaning of the 'dimensions' and 'trunk fields' it advertises.
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 compact sentence listing the payload contents. It is front-loaded and free of filler, though the comma-list structure is a little run-on.
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 read tool, the description covers what comes back in the absence of an output schema, and the annotation plus schema handle safety and auth. Missing only the relationship to list_conventions, which is a minor gap.
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%: the required 'name' parameter is documented with an example and the api_token parameter explains its header alternative. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 specifically what the tool returns: a single convention's dimensions, trunk fields, listing count, and store examples. The retrieval verb is implied by the name rather than stated, and it does not distinguish itself from the sibling list_conventions, which is the obvious alternative for pulling conventions.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of the alternative (list_conventions) for enumerating conventions rather than fetching one. The agent must infer that this is the single-item lookup counterpart to the list tool.
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.