supplier_certsCertificates you issued (as buyer) or hold (as supplier). Requires the organization API key.
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": "supplier_certs"
}
}| 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?
The description adds the critical operational requirement that the call 'Requires the organization API key,' which is a key constraint on the agent's execution environment not provided by the annotations. It confirms the read-only nature through this structural necessity.
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 definition is extremely concise, fitting the key information (what it retrieves and what is needed to run it) into just two well-structured sentences with zero redundancy.
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 that the inputs are empty and the operation is read-only (as per annotations), the description is highly complete. It clearly communicates the function and the necessary authentication context.
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?
Since the tool has zero input parameters, the description provides no semantic information beyond the scope of the tool itself. Following the baseline for zero parameters, this score reflects that no more semantic depth could be provided.
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 defines the resource as certificates and specifies the two contexts: certificates issued by the entity (as buyer) or held by the entity (as supplier). This successfully distinguishes its scope from general proof tools among the siblings.
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 provides an important operational guideline regarding the 'organization API key' requirement. However, it offers no guidance on when this specific tool should be used over alternatives like `supplier_cert_verify` or `supplier_proof_inbox`, resulting in an implied rather than explicit usage strategy.
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.