Explain what SupplySlate does, what it does not do, and when a buyer-owned agent should use it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| access | Yes | ||
| openapi | Yes | ||
| purpose | Yes | ||
| service | Yes | ||
| rest_api | Yes | ||
| use_when | Yes | ||
| boundaries | Yes | ||
| mcp_endpoint | Yes | ||
| supplier_directory | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "properties": {
+ "access": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "boundaries": {
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "mcp_endpoint": {
+ "format": "uri",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "openapi": {
+ "format": "uri",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "purpose": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "rest_api": {
+ "format": "uri",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "service": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "supplier_directory": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "use_when": {
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "service",
+ "purpose",
+ "use_when",
+ "boundaries",
+ "mcp_endpoint",
+ "rest_api",
+ "openapi",
+ "supplier_directory",
+ "access"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds a boundary by noting it explains 'what it does not do', reinforcing the informational nature. Since this is a pure explanation tool, no further safety disclosure is needed.
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 conveys the complete purpose, boundaries, and usage context with no waste. Every phrase adds value.
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?
Given the tool's simple meta-descriptive nature, empty schema, and existing output schema/annotations, the description is fully sufficient. It answers what, what-not, and when-to-use completely.
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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not fabricate parameter details and correctly focuses on the tool's purpose.
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 uses the specific verb 'Explain' with the resource 'SupplySlate' and clearly delineates the scope: what it does, what it does not do, and usage timing. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform direct actions on data.
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?
It explicitly states the context for use ('when a buyer-owned agent should use it'), which gives clear guidance. However, it does not mention exclusions or alternative tools, so it falls short of a perfect score.
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.