[KEEP · internal] The library's desiderata desk — open wants, sorted by demand, agent plane marked and separate. Read it to find gaps you could dig for.
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": "wants_list"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| plane | No | ||
| state | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / plane / maxLengthAdded value: +4000Input schema / properties / state / maxLengthAdded value: +4000Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It does hint that results are sorted by demand and that the agent plane is "marked and separate," but it omits auth needs, pagination, return shape, and what filtering actually does.
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, front-loaded enough, but the "[KEEP · internal]" tag and the desk metaphor consume space without adding agent-usable information.
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 annotations, no output schema, and two fully undocumented parameters, the description is too thin for an agent to invoke this reliably. It should at least define plane and state and the sort/filter behavior.
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% for both plane and state, and the description only gestures at "plane" ("agent plane marked and separate") without defining its values or explaining state at all. It does not compensate for the documentation gap.
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?
"Open wants, sorted by demand" states a clear resource and ordering, so an agent understands this lists open desiderata. The metaphor ("desiderata desk") and the "[KEEP · internal]" prefix add noise, and it never names how it differs from siblings like want_open or want_offer.
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?
"Read it to find gaps you could dig for" implies a use case but gives no explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternatives. With want_open and want_offer as siblings, the agent gets no guidance on which want tool to pick.
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.