Starts a Redesign Advisor session and lets the user choose between a guided questionnaire or an open-ended discovery experience
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_an_advice"
}
}| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It states that it starts a session and offers a choice, but it does not explain side effects (e.g., whether an existing session is overwritten), what the user experience is, or what the tool returns. This is a significant gap for a session-initiating tool.
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 that is concise, front-loaded, and contains no filler. It directly states the action, the resource, and the two choices, making it easily scannable.
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 simple 0-parameter tool, the description covers the main behavior well. It does not mention next steps or return values, but with no output schema and sibling tools indicating follow-up actions, this is largely adequate. A brief mention of session handling would improve it.
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 0 parameters, so the schema is complete. The description adds minimal parameter-related meaning, but none is needed. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not confuse or mislead.
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 uses a specific verb ('Starts') and resource ('Redesign Advisor session'), and clearly explains the two modes (guided questionnaire vs open-ended discovery). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like start_advisor_guided_questionnaire and start_advisor_open_ended_experience, which directly start specific modes.
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 implies usage context: to initiate a session and let the user pick a mode. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the intent is clear. Sibling tool names provide additional context, though the description itself does not contrast with them.
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.