spiritsThe 24 animal spirits with their ids, names, habitats, plates and page links. Use an id with altar or buy_kit. Read-only.
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": "spirits"
}
}| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so "Read-only." largely restates structured data. The genuinely additive part is that the returned ids are meant to be consumed by altar and buy_kit. Nothing is said about the fixed size of the result set beyond "24", which is fine but minimal; no annotation contradiction.
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 with no filler: the first states content and returned fields, the second states how to consume the output. Front-loaded and fully earned.
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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values, and it does so by listing ids, names, habitats, plates and page links. For a zero-parameter read-only reference tool this is nearly complete; only the concrete response shape (array vs object) is left unstated.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The mention of "id" refers to a returned value, not an input, and is correctly framed as something to pass to other tools.
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 24 animal spirits with their ids, names, habitats, plates and page links" names the exact resource and enumerates the fields returned, so an agent knows precisely what it will get. It never uses an explicit verb ("returns"/"lists"), which keeps it just short of a 5, but sibling differentiation is implied by the guidance to use the ids with altar or buy_kit.
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?
"Use an id with altar or buy_kit" explicitly hands off to two named siblings and states the workflow (fetch ids here, then pass them downstream). It gives clear usage context but no explicit "do not use this when..." exclusion, so it falls short of a 5.
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.