get_factsGet the register facts as key-value groups: scope, counts, method thresholds, prices, data rules and agent endpoints. Same content as the /facts page.
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_facts"
}
}| 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?
Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description's added value is the content shape: key-value groups covering scope, counts, thresholds, prices, rules, and endpoints. With no output schema, this return-content disclosure is exactly the kind of context that earns credit. It stops short of noting size or format details.
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 verb and resource, then a content inventory and a page-equivalence note. Every clause carries information an agent can use.
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 no-argument, read-only retrieval tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it tells the agent the content categories it will receive. Only minor gaps remain (roughly how large the payload is, whether anything is summarized).
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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to explain; the baseline for a no-arg tool applies. Nothing in the description misleads about inputs.
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?
Names a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('register facts') and enumerates the content groups returned (scope, counts, method thresholds, prices, data rules, agent endpoints). That is far more specific than the title, and 'facts' is clearly distinct from the sibling pack/profession/task tools. Sibling differentiation is implicit rather than stated.
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 reference to 'the /facts page' gives a mental model for what this returns, so its use as a general reference/metadata lookup is implied. However, there is no explicit statement of when to call it versus the sibling listing tools, and no exclusions or prerequisites.
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.