view_cacheA cache's story, clues you have unlocked, trinkets inside and logbook.
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": {
"code": "<code>"
},
"name": "view_cache"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | Cache code, e.g. LC001. |
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 discloses return components and implies a read operation via 'view' and personalized state ('clues you have unlocked'), but it does not state permissions, side effects, or whether the operation is strictly read-only.
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 concise sentence fragment with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter read tool, though it lacks a clear front-loaded verb and reads more like a content summary.
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 simple read tool with a fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description gives useful return content but omits explicit usage guidance and read-only confirmation. It is adequate but has clear gaps.
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 100%, so the sole parameter 'code' is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, which is the baseline expectation when the schema already covers it.
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 is a noun phrase listing returned content ('story, clues you have unlocked, trinkets inside and logbook') rather than a clear verb+resource. It implies retrieving a specific cache's details, which distinguishes it from list_caches, but the purpose is not stated explicitly.
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?
No when-to-use guidance or alternatives are provided. The agent must infer from the name and title that this views a single cache by code, with no exclusions or comparison to siblings like list_caches or attempt_cache.
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.