Return the exact MCP and REST connection details a buyer, developer, or agent operator needs to connect to SupplySlate.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| client | No | The agent client or integration style that will connect to SupplySlate. | generic_mcp |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mcp | Yes | ||
| rest | Yes | ||
| client | Yes | ||
| first_action | Yes | ||
| obtain_access | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds that the tool provides connection details for MCP and REST, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as return structure, authentication requirements, or rate limits. It neither contradicts annotations nor enriches them substantially.
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?
One concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and audience. No fluff, every word contributes to understanding what the tool does.
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?
The tool is simple with one optional parameter and an output schema. The description adequately states what is returned (connection details) and the audience. It could mention that the output varies by client, but output schema likely covers that. For this level of complexity, the description is complete enough.
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 single 'client' parameter has a clear description and enum. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which already fully explains parameter semantics. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 clearly states the tool returns exact connection details for MCP and REST specifically for SupplySlate. It uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('connection details'), and the audience scope (buyer, developer, agent operator) distinguishes it from sibling tools like describe_supplyslate.
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 implies usage when connection details are needed (when a buyer, developer, or agent operator needs to connect to SupplySlate). It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. Sibling tools are not referenced, but the intended scenario is clear.
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.
Every tool targets a distinct resource, role, or action. For example, list_orders versus list_supplier_orders clearly separates buyer and supplier views, and update_supplier_order versus update_supplier_order_issue versus update_supplier_order_return handle different concerns despite similar names. Rich descriptions eliminate ambiguity.
All tool names consistently use snake_case with a verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_project, list_orders, update_supplier_capabilities, search_products). The style is uniform across reads, writes, lists, and searches, making the API predictable.
With 55 tools, the server far exceeds the typical well-scoped range of 3-15. Even for a broad supply chain platform, 50+ tools hits the rubric's 'extreme mismatch' threshold. The domain is comprehensive, but the sheer number overwhelms and likely complicates agent tool selection.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle from project creation, BOM management, sourcing, quoting, planning, checkout handoff, orders, returns, issues, warranties, catalog updates, supplier profiles, and validation. It handles buyer and supplier sides with appropriate state transitions, and includes meta tools for connection and schema guidance. No obvious critical gaps exist.