Test deployment. Not for any maintained production.
Return one random engineering rule of thumb. Takes no input and has no side effects.
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_rule_of_thumb"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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 destructiveHint=false)Skip, and the description adds that the tool is random and has no side effects, reinforcing the safe, read-only nature. It also clarifies the 'no input' constraint, which goes beyond the schema. No contradictions with annotations.
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 a single sentence that delivers the core purpose and side-effect profile without any fluff. Both key facts are front-loaded and every word earns its place.
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?
Given the zero-parameter schematok/contexts, an output schema exists, and sibling tools are unrelated, the description covers everything an agent needs. The tool's behavior is fully described by its randomness and lack of side effects.
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 alerting schema coverage is effectively 100%. The description explicitly states 'takes no input,' providing a clear semantic confirmation beyond the empty schema object. Per the rubric, a score of 4 is appropriate for no-parameter tools.
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 states a clear, specific verb and resource: 'Return one random engineering rule of thumb.' This fully differentiates it from sibling tools like add_numbers and get_server_time, which perform entirely different functions.
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 description clearly conveys the contexts in which the tool is useful: when a random engineering heuristic is needed. It explicitly notes that no input is required and there are no side effects, but does not describe any exclusion criteria or alternative tools, though none are necessary given the distinct purpose.
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.