Emit a CARD-045 exit work order from a register entry (complete, or missing fields named).
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "exit_work_order"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entry | No | ||
| asset_id | No |
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. The parenthetical "(complete, or missing fields named)" does hint at a validation/failure behavior, which is genuinely useful, but it never says whether the tool mutates state or merely renders output, whether it requires authentication, or what side effects emitting a work order has.
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 tight sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity partly reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.
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 tool with a nested object parameter, zero schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot determine required inputs (required count is 0 despite two params), the shape of 'entry', or the resulting behavior.
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% and both parameters are bare: an untyped nested 'entry' object and an unexplained 'asset_id' string. The description clarifies that 'entry' is a register entry that may be incomplete or have fields named, but adds nothing about 'asset_id', leaving half the surface undocumented in both schema and prose.
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 gives a verb ("Emit"), a named artifact ("CARD-045 exit work order"), and a source ("a register entry"), which is more than a tautology. However, "CARD-045" is domain jargon with no explanation, and nothing distinguishes this from siblings like register_list or check_before_create, which an agent must infer relate to the same register lifecycle.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus register_list, check_before_create, or sweep, nor any prerequisite or precondition. The phrase "from a register entry" only weakly implies that a register lookup happens first; the agent is left to guess the ordering.
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.