Update one of your draft calculators by id.
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": {
"id": "<id>"
},
"name": "update_calculator"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| code | No | ||
| name | No | ||
| slug | No | ||
| spec | No | ||
| tier | No | ||
| authoring | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses almost nothing: not whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared (critical given only 'id' is required and six fields are optional), not whether changes are reversible, not what validation or errors occur. The word 'draft' hints that published calculators are off-limits, but that is the only behavioral signal.
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 short sentence with the resource and targeting key front-loaded; nothing is redundant. It is efficient, but lean to the point that brevity 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?
This is a mutation tool with seven parameters, a nested object, no annotations, and no output schema, yet it gets a single twelve-word sentence. An agent cannot tell which fields are patchable, how partial updates behave, or what constraints apply to drafts, so the definition is not sufficient to call it correctly.
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% across seven parameters, including a nested 'spec' object, so the description must compensate and does not. It only identifies 'id' as the targeting key ('by id'); the meaning, format, and update semantics of code, name, slug, spec, tier, and authoring are 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 gives a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('calculators'), plus two scoping qualifiers: 'draft' and 'your'. That distinguishes it from create_calculator and fork_calculator without needing to name them, though it does not explicitly point to a sibling alternative.
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?
'Update one of your draft calculators' implies a usage constraint (only drafts, only ones you own), which is genuine guidance. However, it never states what to do for published or non-owned calculators (e.g., fork_calculator), nor any prerequisite like validation or review state, leaving the agent to infer.
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.