score_draftsScore up to ten drafts against your writing rules without saving them.
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": {
"drafts": "<drafts>"
},
"name": "score_drafts"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rules | No | ||
| drafts | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the non-persistent, non-destructive profile is covered structurally. The description's 'without saving them' is consistent reinforcement, but it adds nothing about what a 'score' consists of or how rules are resolved when the optional rules parameter is omitted.
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 compact sentence with the key constraints front-loaded and no filler. Every clause ('up to ten', 'against your writing rules', 'without saving them') carries distinct information.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description should have described what a score actually is (a number, per-rule breakdown, pass/fail) and what happens when rules are omitted. For a two-parameter scoring tool with moderate output complexity, these gaps leave the agent guessing about the result shape.
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%, so the description carries full burden; it does convey that drafts are scored against 'your writing rules' and that at most ten drafts are accepted. It says nothing about the rules parameter being optional or whether omitting it falls back to account-level rules, and it does not explain the 2000-char per-draft limit.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Score ... drafts') plus the scope limit ('up to ten') and the evaluative basis ('against your writing rules'). It implicitly separates itself from save_drafts via 'without saving them', though it never names a sibling 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?
'without saving them' signals this is a preview/dry-run scoring call rather than a persistence step, which is useful when-to-use context. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over save_drafts or approve/reject flows, leaving the agent to infer the pipeline.
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.