取得單一商品詳細資料、網友販售回報（有貨／售完、城市與店名）與討論。
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"id": "<id>"
},
"name": "get_toy"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
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 carries full burden. It discloses that results include user reports and discussions, which adds behavioral context beyond a simple data retrieval. However, it does not mention permissions, rate limits, or output format. For a tool with no annotations, more transparency (e.g., what constitutes 'reports', any privacy considerations) would be beneficial.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary function and then lists additional data. It is concise and every element 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 tool's complexity (returns multiple data types) and no output schema, the description should ideally explain the return structure more or note that it may include nested data. It covers the main content but lacks details on the identifier parameter and doesn't fully compensate for missing annotations. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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 description coverage is 0% (only 'id' with no description). The description does not mention the 'id' parameter at all, leaving it undocumented. Since there is only 1 parameter and the tool clearly requires an identifier, the gap is less severe, but the description fails to clarify what 'id' refers to (e.g., product ID, internal ID) or its format.
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 states the tool's function: fetch detailed information about a single toy, including user availability reports (in-stock/sold-out, city & store name) and discussions. This is a specific verb+resource (get single toy details + reporting). However, it could be more distinguishing from sibling tools like 'latest_toy_news' or 'search_toys' by explicitly noting it's for a single item by ID rather than a broader search.
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 (to get details for a specific toy) but does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. No mention of when to use this versus 'search_toys' or 'latest_toy_news'. Without explicit routing, the agent must infer.
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.