全球玩具、模型、公仔、娃娃官方發售表（亞洲・美國・歐洲）：萬代、Good Smile、TAKARA TOMY、LEGO、Funko 等，含發售／出貨日、價格與官方連結。
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": "global_toy_calendar"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | 類別 | |
| zone | No | 地區 | |
| month | No | 月份 YYYY-MM；不填為即將發售 |
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 the full burden and it does disclose the data contents (release/shipping dates, prices, official links) and geographic coverage. However, it says nothing about pagination, result limits, ordering, data freshness, or whether the operation is strictly read-only, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.
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 front-loaded sentence that states the resource, scope, and contents without preamble or redundancy. The brand list is somewhat long but serves as concrete coverage examples, so it largely earns its space.
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 three-parameter, no-required-arg listing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately conveys what is returned and which regions/categories are covered, so an agent can call it correctly. The main omission is how it relates to the overlapping 'release_calendar' sibling.
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 100% with two enums fully enumerated, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description only echoes the zone coverage (Asia/US/Europe) already present in the enum, adding no syntax, default, or interaction detail beyond the schema.
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 names a specific resource (official release calendars for toys/models/figures/dolls) and its scope (Asia/US/Europe), with examples of brands and data included. It is clear what the tool returns, but it offers no differentiation from the sibling 'release_calendar', which appears to cover the same concept.
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?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite a sibling named 'release_calendar' that an agent would need to disambiguate against. The agent is left to infer that this is the global, multi-region variant purely from the name.
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.