玩具品牌官方網站新聞：新品、發售日、延期、活動（Good Smile、萬代模型、TAKARA TOMY、MegaHouse、壽屋、LEGO）。
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": "official_toy_news"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| zone | No | ||
| limit | No |
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 behavioral burden. It implies a read-only news feed but says nothing about freshness, update frequency, result format, pagination, or whether results are grouped by brand/date — all of which matter for a news 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 front-loaded sentence states the resource first and then the covered content and brands. It is efficient with no filler, though the brand parenthetical is somewhat long relative to the low information it adds.
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 read-only news fetch with no output schema and two optional params, the description covers what kind of content is returned. However, it omits any explanation of the zone/limit parameters and offers no tie-breaker against the near-identical latest_toy_news 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 0%, and the description is completely silent on both parameters. The zone enum values (亞洲/美國/歐洲) are minimally self-documenting, but limit has no meaning conveyed anywhere, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 the specific resource (official brand-website news) and enumerates the content it covers (new products, release dates, delays, events) plus the source brands (Good Smile, Bandai, TAKARA TOMY, etc.). This is far more specific than a tautology, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similarly-named sibling latest_toy_news, leaving the agent to infer the difference.
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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the close sibling latest_toy_news or the release_calendar/global_toy_calendar tools that also concern release dates. The agent must guess which news tool to call.
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.