Get a nine-slice by ID, including its parts.
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": {
"nineSliceId": "<nineSliceId>"
},
"name": "get_nineslice"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nineSliceId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond that: the response includes the nine-slice's parts. However, with no output schema it does not describe return shape, ordering, or what happens for a nonexistent ID.
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 short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. It is efficient but so terse that the trailing clause about parts is the only content beyond the title.
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?
This is a low-complexity single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, so the description does not need to be long. Still, an agent gets no signal about missing-ID behavior or the practical source of IDs, and the return content is only hinted at with "including its parts".
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% for the single parameter, so the description must carry the meaning and largely does not. "By ID" merely restates the parameter name; it says nothing about where valid IDs come from or that the schema requires a positive integer (exclusiveMinimum 0).
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 ("Get a nine-slice by ID") and adds that parts are included in the result, which separates it from create_nineslice/update_nineslice by implication. It never names the closest siblings, get_default_nineslice or list_nineslices, so the agent must infer the boundary itself.
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?
"By ID" implies this is a lookup for when you already hold an identifier, which is minimal implied usage guidance. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no mention of how to obtain an ID (e.g., list_nineslices), and no differentiation from get_default_nineslice, which returns a different kind of nine-slice.
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.