The RankCert board for a launch week: every live product with its verification tier and rank score.
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": "board_this_week"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| week | No | Monday of the week as YYYY-MM-DD. Defaults to current. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool returns and does not mention whether it is read-only, any side effects, limitations, or error behavior. The default week parameter is only in the schema, not the description.
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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the purpose and output. It is concise without waste, though it could add a bit more detail without sacrificing brevity.
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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not mention the default behavior of the week parameter (though in schema), nor does it clarify the output format beyond listing products. It is sufficient for a straightforward read operation but lacks depth.
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 coverage is 100%, so the parameter 'week' is fully documented in the schema with its format and default. The description adds no extra meaning beyond that, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 returns the RankCert board for a launch week, listing live products with their verification tier and rank score. The verb 'board' implies a listing, and the content is specified. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like product_signals or verification_stats, though the weekly board scope is evident.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or typical scenarios. The only hint is 'for a launch week,' which is implicit rather than explicit.
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.