Upstream tools as name + one-line description. 1 unit.
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": "slim_index"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | Filter keywords | |
| apiKey | No | mtsl_ key, if no X-API-Key header | |
| upstream | No | Upstream MCP URL, if not in ?upstream= |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is already covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavior detail beyond that: the call costs "1 unit", which informs cost-aware selection. It says nothing about upstream resolution, auth failure behavior, or the size/shape of the listing beyond "name + one-line description".
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?
It is only two fragments with no filler, but the telegraphic style leaves the subject and verb implicit and the "1 unit" cost note unattached to any framing. It is terse rather than efficiently structured.
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-required-parameter read tool that resolves an upstream server, the definition is thin: it does not explain how the upstream target is chosen between the param and URL query, what "1 unit" refers to, or how the result relates to slim_schema. No output schema exists, so the description carries more burden than it meets.
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 100%, so each parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning about how `query` filtering works, what prefix `mtsl_` implies, or how the `upstream` param interacts with the `?upstream=` URL form; baseline 3 applies.
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?
"Upstream tools as name + one-line description" indicates the tool lists upstream tools with a summary shape, so an agent can roughly infer it is a compact index/listing operation. However, there is no explicit verb ("list", "index") and no mention of which upstream (the one resolved via the `upstream` param or `?upstream=`), leaving the resource somewhat ambiguous relative to siblings like slim_schema.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The definition never states that this should be used for a cheap overview before calling slim_schema for full details, nor does it explain when the `query` filter or `apiKey`/`upstream` overrides matter.
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.