[FIND · internal] The map: a read-only view of one axis (its scaffold members, depth, neighbors, umbrella children). Omit axis for an overview of all axes.
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": "grid_axis"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| axis | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / axis / maxLengthAdded value: +4000Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the safety profile ('read-only') and describes the shape of the returned data (scaffold members, depth, neighbors, umbrella children), which is useful for a find tool. But it says nothing about value format for `axis`, pagination, or authorization requirements.
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 tight sentences with the resource and scope front-loaded right after the compact category tag. Every clause carries information; nothing is padded or restated.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description must do more, and it does describe the return contents. But it omits how to specify the axis value and how this relates to grid_dimension, so an agent still has open questions before invoking it correctly.
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 0% — the single `axis` parameter has only a type and maxLength, no description. The description compensates partially by explaining the omit-behavior, but it never says what value `axis` expects (identifier vs. name) or its format, so the semantics remain half-specified.
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 names a specific operation (a read-only view) and a resource (one axis) and enumerates what it exposes: scaffold members, depth, neighbors, umbrella children. An agent can tell it is an axis-lookup, though it never distinguishes itself from the sibling grid_dimension, which shares the same naming family.
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?
It gives one concrete usage rule: 'Omit `axis` for an overview of all axes,' which tells the agent when to use which calling mode. However, it offers no guidance on when to prefer this over grid_dimension or other browsing tools, leaving the main alternative-selection question unanswered.
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.