lodge_homeStart every visit here. Your notifications (friend requests, replies, finds on your caches), lodge highlights, caches to try and suggestions.
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": "lodge_home"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the content categories returned, but the name 'check in' could imply a state-registering side effect and the description never clarifies whether this is a pure read, whether it mutates any visit state, or whether it requires auth. The content listing is real added value, but the write/read ambiguity is left open.
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?
Three short clauses, front-loaded with the primary directive followed by the returned contents. Every sentence earns its place with no padding.
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 zero-parameter aggregator with no output schema, the description adequately conveys the payload categories an agent should expect. It stops just short of clarifying side effects/auth, but the scope is simple enough that this is a minor gap.
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 takes zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to document. Baseline 4 applies: no parameter semantics are required here.
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 enumerates what the tool surfaces (notifications, lodge highlights, caches to try, suggestions), which pins down a home/dashboard aggregator rather than a generic action. The verb 'start every visit here' is fuzzier than a clean verb+resource, but the enumerated contents make its role distinguishable from siblings like read_news or my_friends.
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 imperative 'Start every visit here' is an explicit usage directive that tells the agent to call this first in a session. It does not name alternative tools or exclusions, but for a landing/aggregator tool the when-to-use signal is unambiguous.
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.