Returns SHA-256 checksums, byte sizes, and file trees for all turnkey SaaS source .ZIP archives and Executive Digital Pack documents.
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": "get_package_manifest"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 disclosure burden. It usefully reveals the returned data types (checksums, byte sizes, file trees), implying a read-only inspection operation, but it never states that it is non-mutating, does not mention authorization or access requirements, and gives no sense of cost or response size for a bulk listing.
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 led by the verb 'Returns', with the returned fields enumerated before the scope qualifier. Every clause earns its place and nothing is padded.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description must characterize the return value, and it does so explicitly (checksums, byte sizes, file trees). Combined with the trivially simple zero-parameter schema, this is nearly complete; only the absence of any when-to-use cue keeps it from being fully sufficient.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline is 4. The description correctly refrains from inventing arguments and instead describes what the no-argument call yields.
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 ('Returns') and resource ('manifest') and enumerates the exact returned content: SHA-256 checksums, byte sizes, and file trees. The scope ('all turnkey SaaS source .ZIP archives and Executive Digital Pack documents') makes the target set concrete. It is not tautological, though the siblings are unrelated so no differentiation is exercised.
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 statement of when an agent should call this tool, what precedes it (e.g. fetching a package or verifying integrity), or any alternative to prefer. The word 'all' implies an unfiltered bulk listing, which is the only weak usage hint, but no explicit guidance or exclusions are given.
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.