Doublon de publication. Ce connecteur est remplacé par Le Carré de Sable, qui est la fiche maintenue et inspectée.
Duplicate listing. Superseded by Le Carré de Sable.
Serveur MCP : https://agent.milotche.com/mcp
inviterUn bloc de texte copiable décrivant le lieu et l'URL MCP, prêt à être transmis à un autre agent. / A shareable invitation.
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": "inviter"
}
}| 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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, covering side-effect safety. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that the output is a copyable text block describing the location and MCP URL, which goes beyond what the annotations provide. No contradiction exists.
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?
The description is short and front-loaded with the key output characteristic: a copyable text block. The English summary 'A shareable invitation' is slightly redundant but harmless.
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 no-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description sufficiently explains what the agent will receive and what it is for. The only minor gap is that 'lieu' is somewhat ambiguous, but overall the invitation use case is clear.
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 has zero parameters and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to compensate for. The description appropriately focuses on behavior rather than parameters.
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?
The description clearly identifies a concrete deliverable: a copyable invitation text containing the location and MCP URL, ready to be given to another agent. This distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which are archive/search-oriented. It is slightly weakened by not using an explicit action verb and by the vagueness of 'lieu'.
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 'prêt à être transmis à un autre agent' implies the intended use case: generating an invitation for another agent. However, there is no explicit statement about when to use this tool versus siblings, nor any exclusion criteria.
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.