Citable public route/service pages with localized disclaimer and source-language evidence.
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": "get_citeable_pages"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | de | |
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| topic | No | ||
| category | No | ||
| language | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only characterizes the content of the pages, not what invoking the tool does, whether it is read-only, how results are limited, or what response shape to expect. The 'get' prefix hints at retrieval, but the description itself provides no behavioral detail.
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 very short and contains no filler, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise and well-structured. It reads as a fragment rather than a complete tool definition, and the missing action and parameter context reduce the value of its brevity.
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?
Given 6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, a one-line noun phrase is completely inadequate for correct invocation. The description does not specify what is returned, how inputs affect results, pagination behavior, or even that the tool fetches a list. An agent would be guessing on nearly every call.
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 input schema has 0% description coverage and all 6 parameters are optional and undocumented in the schema. The description does not explain query, topic, category, lang, language, or limit, nor the apparent distinction between lang and language. This leaves the agent unable to determine what values are meaningful.
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 identifies a resource—'citable public route/service pages'—and gives some distinguishing traits (localized disclaimer, source-language evidence), but it lacks a verb and never explicitly states that the tool returns or lists these pages. It is more of a label than a clear operation definition, though it is distinguishable from siblings like get_route and search_routes.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_routes, get_faq, get_route, or get_methodology. There is no mention of intended use cases, exclusions, or conditions that would route an agent here instead of a sibling.
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.