Score one stricken run ($0.05 or allowance) and return its triage tag
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": {
"incident_id": "<incident_id>",
"view": "<view>"
},
"name": "score_run"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| view | Yes | ||
| incident_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral context. It usefully discloses a cost of $0.05 or allowance and says the tool returns a triage tag, but it does not clarify whether scoring writes or mutates state, what permissions are needed, whether the charge is incurred on failure, or how idempotency works.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, its extreme terseness makes key terms like 'stricken run' and '$0.05 or allowance' somewhat cryptic for a tool with a complex nested input.
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 a nested two-parameter schema, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is far too sparse. It mentions the fee and return type but leaves the agent unable to populate the view object or understand the scoring side effects.
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 the description does not explain either incident_id or the nested view object. The rich set of view fields, including deadline_min, effects_irreversible, checkpoint_integrity, and counterparties, is left entirely undocumented.
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 verb and resource: 'Score one stricken run,' and indicates the result is a triage tag. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish it from likely siblings such as retriage_run or query_tag.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. 'Stricken run' implies a context, but the description never mentions retriage_run, query_tag, or any conditions that select one over another.
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.