get_subsidysearch_subsidies で得た id の制度について、判定の理由・補助率・対象経費・対象外経費を返す。
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"id": "<id>"
},
"name": "get_subsidy"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | 制度のid（uuid） |
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 openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral value by enumerating what the response contains (judgment reason, subsidy rate, eligible and ineligible expenses), which matters because there is no output schema; it does not cover failure behavior for an unknown id.
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 with no filler, front-loading the prerequisite (id from search_subsidies) before the returned fields. Nothing is redundant with the title or schema.
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 one-parameter, read-only detail lookup with no output schema, the description supplies the missing piece — the shape of the returned content — plus the id's source. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is absent.
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% and the single id parameter is already documented as a uuid, so the baseline would be 3. The description goes slightly beyond the schema by specifying the provenance of the id (it comes from search_subsidies results), which tells the agent where a valid value originates.
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 (returns details for a program id) and explicitly scopes it to ids obtained from search_subsidies, which cleanly separates it from that sibling. An agent can tell this is the detail-lookup companion to the search tool without opening the schema.
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 phrase 'search_subsidies で得た id の制度について' makes the usage context clear: call this after a search, passing an id from those results. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance (e.g., what to do if no id is known), but the implied workflow is unambiguous.
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.