Poll one of your RemixMeme generations by id.
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_generation"
}
}| 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 the full behavioral burden. 'Poll' hints that the resource may not be ready yet, but the definition says nothing about pending/failed states, error behavior for unknown ids, rate limits, or whether repeated calls are expected and cheap.
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?
One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though its brevity is closer to under-specification than to disciplined concision.
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 single-parameter read tool this is thin: with no annotations and no output schema, the agent still lacks guidance on what a generation result contains, how to source the id, and what to do while a generation is in progress.
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 single parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must supply meaning. 'By id' establishes that the parameter is the generation identifier, but it does not clarify the id format or where an agent obtains one.
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?
States a specific verb (poll) and resource (a RemixMeme generation) plus the keying method (by id). It is distinguishable from list_generations by the singular 'one of your' scope, though it never explicitly contrasts with it.
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?
'Poll' implies the intended workflow (repeatedly check an async generation after submitting it), which is useful implicit guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus list_generations, no statement about how the id is obtained, and no when-not-to-use condition.
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.