Detailed documentation for a bench capability, before working with an unfamiliar topic: what its events and metrics mean, how to read them, and the gotchas. No arguments lists everything; name one entry or a playbook for the detail.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | A stream entry (power, dl, build, fs, vitals, gpu, os-app, net, history, alarms, agents, ...) or a playbook (triage, follow-a-trace, silent-stream, ...) |
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 burden. It clearly states this is read-only documentation (no side effects), and describes behavior: returns high-level info with no args, detailed info with a name. It doesn't disclose edge cases like invalid names, but given it's a doc tool, that's minor. It adds meaningful context about how the tool behaves (summary vs detail).
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 concise, two sentences. It front-loads the purpose and then states usage guidance. No filler. Slightly could be structured with bullets, but it's efficient.
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 documentation tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, this is fairly complete. It explains what it does, what it returns at a high level (events/metrics meaning), and how to use it (name or empty). It doesn't list all possible values, but the schema already does with examples. Sibling tools like list_streams suggest that listing all entries is handled elsewhere, so this tool's scope is clear.
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 schema has 100% coverage, describing the 'name' parameter with examples. The description reinforces that the parameter is optional and specifies the two kinds of values (entries, playbooks) and the behavior difference. It adds value by explaining the no-arg behavior, which is not in the schema.
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 states a specific purpose: documenting a bench capability's events, metrics, reading them, and gotchas. It clearly indicates the tool provides reference documentation, not execution. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on documentation/interpretation of streams, though it's slightly vague on what 'guides' exactly entails.
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 explicitly says 'No arguments lists everything' and instructs to name one entry or playbook for detail. It sets expectations for when to call without arguments vs with a name. It doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives but the sibling list (interpret, list_streams, etc.) implies this is for detailed docs, and the wording implies it's for unfamiliar topics.
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.
