Free. Every product this server sells, with price, chains, when to use each, and the HTTP URL. Start here.
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": "menu"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 burden and does supply useful context: the tool is free, returns a list-style catalog, and is positioned as an entry point. However, it does not explicitly state side effects, authentication needs, or response shape, though the read-only nature is strongly implied.
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 dense sentence packs the cost, scope, fields, and a directive to start here. No word is wasted and the key guidance is present.
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 zero-parameter menu tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent will receive (products, prices, chains, usage guidance, URL) and when to use it. Nothing essential is missing.
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 tool has zero parameters and an empty schema, so there are no parameter semantics to document. Baseline 4 applies; the description does not need to add parameter detail.
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?
Description clearly defines the tool as a menu of every product the server sells, including price, chains, selection guidance, and HTTP URL. This is a specific resource with no ambiguity and is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools by its catalog scope.
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?
"Start here." explicitly tells the agent to use this tool first, providing clear situational context. It does not name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of full exclusion guidance.
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.