explain_ruzora_termsRuzora's standard terms in plain words, from the published terms: pricing model, the 90-day initial commitment and notice, the 60-day replacement guarantee and its limits, refunds, the factory warranty, speed, and how an engagement starts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| topic | No | Which term: all, pricing, commitment, refunds, guarantee, factory_warranty, delivery or process |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds one useful provenance note ('from the published terms'), indicating the answers are authoritative, but says nothing about format, length, or fallback behavior when a term is absent.
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 names the resource immediately and then enumerates the subject matter, with no filler. It is dense but each clause corresponds to a distinct enum value, so nothing is wasted.
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?
No output schema exists, but the description enumerates the topics covered, which effectively communicates what the tool returns. Combined with the read-only annotations, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only return-format details are unaddressed.
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% and the enum labels are self-describing, so baseline would be 3. The description goes further by unpacking what the topic values actually cover (e.g., 'commitment' = 90-day initial commitment and notice; 'guarantee' = 60-day replacement guarantee and its limits), letting an agent map a user question to the right topic without guessing.
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 and resource (explain Ruzora's standard terms) and enumerates the exact content: pricing model, 90-day commitment and notice, 60-day replacement guarantee and limits, refunds, warranty, speed, engagement start. An agent can tell this apart from the hiring-oriented siblings at a glance without opening any schema.
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 content scope implies when to use it (questions about Ruzora's terms), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. It is adequate but the routing guidance is inferred rather than stated.
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.