Read consulting services and search public architecture consulting documents in English or German.
Scored across 4 tools
list_services and read_document both can retrieve pricing/contact info, though one is curated. search_docs and search_mentions both search published documents, with the latter's 'composer reference picker' purpose being unclear, creating potential overlap.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (list_services, read_document, search_docs, search_mentions). No deviations or mixed conventions.
Four tools are well-suited for a read-only consulting site: listing services, reading a document, searching docs, and finding mentions. Each has a distinct role, and the set is not bloated.
The surface covers listing services, reading specific docs, and searching documentation, which is adequate for a read-only public site. A tool to list all available documents or a site map is missing, but agents can work around via search.
Read published consulting services, pricing policy and contact URL. Use to assess engagement fit; does not book or send anything.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| language | No | en |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| pricing | Yes | |
| language | Yes | |
| services | Yes | |
| contactUrl | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds useful behavioral context: it reads published services, pricing, and contact data, and it has no side effects like booking or sending. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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?
Two short sentences contain all key information: what is read, what it is used for, and what it does not do. The most important information is front-loaded and there is no filler.
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-only tool with one optional enum-constrained parameter and an output schema present, the description is sufficiently complete. It names the exact contents returned, states the assessment purpose, and clarifies non-action, leaving no operational ambiguity.
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 schema has 0% description coverage and the description adds no parameter guidance. Although the single optional 'language' parameter is well constrained by its enum and default, the description does not compensate for the low schema coverage as required by this dimension.
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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Read published consulting services, pricing policy and contact URL.' It also differentiates itself by explicitly saying it 'does not book or send anything,' so an agent knows exactly what this tool is and is not for.
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 description gives a clear use case: 'Use to assess engagement fit.' It also provides an exclusion by noting it does not book or send anything. However, it does not explicitly compare against sibling tools like read_document or search_docs, so the when-not-to-use guidance is partial rather than complete.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Read a published site markdown document by path, such as /index.md, /pricing.md or /auth.md.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | |
| markdown | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the context that the tool reads from published site documentation, which is useful, but it does not mention behaviors like 404 handling, frontmatter handling, or whether the returned content is raw markdown or rendered HTML. Still, for a read-only retrieval tool the annotation coverage means the burden is lower.
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 one compact sentence with concrete examples. It is front-loaded with the action and target, and every word earns its place. No redundancy or filler.
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?
The tool has only one parameter, a clear output schema exists to explain return values, and annotations already declare read-only safety. Given this simplicity, the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. The examples and path-based semantics complete the picture.
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 fully explains the 'path' parameter's meaning: it should be a markdown path like /index.md, /pricing.md, or /auth.md. However, the description does not specify path constraints beyond the schema's maxLength, and does not explain what happens for invalid or non-markdown paths. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the description compensates for the missing schema description.
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 clearly states the tool's function: reading a published site markdown document by path. It provides concrete examples like /index.md, /pricing.md and /auth.md, which immediately disambiguate it from sibling tools like list_services and search_docs. The verb 'read' plus the resource ('published site markdown document') is specific and actionable.
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 description implies the tool is for retrieving markdown content given a path, and the examples strongly suggest when to use it. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or recommend an alternative, but in context of siblings (list_services, search_docs), the use case is clear enough for an agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search published site documentation using keywords. Returns source URLs and excerpts; no generated advice.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | ||
| language | No | en |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| results | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds meaningful context by disclosing the return shape (source URLs and excerpts) and what the tool will not do ('no generated advice'). This is especially useful for an AI agent choosing between tools in a documentation context.
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 sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds valuable return information and a caveat. Every clause earns its place with no redundant wording.
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?
With an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description sufficiently covers the tool's core purpose, return content, and key limitation. It does not mention the language parameter, but that is adequately documented in the input schema.
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 needs to compensate. It partially does by implying that 'query' is a keyword string ('Search ... using keywords'), but it does not mention the 'language' parameter at all. The parameter names and enum/default in the schema help, but the description does not carry enough weight for the low coverage.
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 uses a specific verb ('Search'), identifies the resource ('published site documentation'), and clarifies the retrieval behavior ('Returns source URLs and excerpts; no generated advice'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like read_document (likely reading a specific doc) and list_services (listing services).
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 description clearly establishes this as the keyword-search entry point for documentation, so an agent knows when to invoke it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to use read_document or list_services instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Find published English and German documents for the composer reference picker.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| items | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds genuinely useful behavioral scope by stating that results are limited to published documents in English and German, which the annotations do not convey. It still omits anything about result volume, ranking, or match behavior.
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 efficient sentence with the core action and constraints front-loaded; nothing is padded. It is arguably too short for the missing guidance, but as structure it is clean.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the tool is simple with one parameter. However, the vague "composer reference picker" framing and the absence of any disambiguation from search_docs leave the agent short of what it needs to invoke this confidently.
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% for the single required query parameter, so the description carries the full burden and does not meet it. It never says what the query string matches against (title, composer name, full text) or that it is capped at 200 characters.
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 verb and resource ("Find ... documents") plus scope qualifiers (published, English and German), but the phrase "for the composer reference picker" is opaque and the definition never distinguishes this from the sibling search_docs. An agent cannot tell from the text which of the two search tools to pick.
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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, even though search_docs and list_services are plausible competitors. "For the composer reference picker" hints at a UI context but does not translate into a usable selection rule.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
search_mentionslist_services6 fields changedOutput schema / properties / pricing / properties / currencyAdded value: +{
+ "const": "EUR",
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / properties / pricing / properties / hourlyRateAdded value: +{
+ "const": 120,
+ "type": "number"
+}Output schema / properties / pricing / properties / publishedRates / constPrevious value: -falseNew value: +trueOutput schema / properties / pricing / properties / unitAdded value: +{
+ "const": "hour",
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / properties / pricing / properties / vatIncludedAdded value: +{
+ "const": false,
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Output schema / properties / pricing / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "type",
- "publishedRates",
- "url"
-]New value: +[
+ "type",
+ "publishedRates",
+ "hourlyRate",
+ "currency",
+ "unit",
+ "vatIncluded",
+ "url"
+]list_servicesread_documentsearch_docsSearch and read Lynta's public documentation.
Search public procurement notices from 17 sources across Germany, the EU and the UK. Read-only.
Search and read Empryo's documentation. Read-only, no auth, no local access.
English blog + agentic workflows architect profile (Paris): search, full text, projects, booking.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
