距離作品上映或開播還有幾天（預設復仇者聯盟：末日崛起）。
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": "release_countdown"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses almost nothing: no timezone handling for the day count, no data source or staleness, no behavior when the title is unrecognized or already released, and no indication the queried title is resolved against a catalog. Only the default fallback ('Avengers: Doomsday') is revealed.
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 short sentence with no padding, and the default value is front-loaded in parentheses. Efficient, though the parenthetical default is arguably more schema/annotation material than description material.
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?
No annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter leaves the agent without enough to call this reliably — it cannot tell what 'q' should contain, what integer or structure comes back, or how it differs from 'release_calendar'.
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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter is the opaque name 'q'. The description never explains that 'q' accepts a title query string, nor what happens if it is omitted (implied default is stated but not tied to the parameter). With low coverage the description should have compensated and does not.
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 states a specific computation (days remaining until a work's theatrical release or premiere) and gives a default title, so the resource and output type are inferable. However, it never clarifies what counts as a 'work' (movie only? TV series? games?) and does not distinguish itself from sibling 'release_calendar', which plausibly covers the same domain.
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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the closest sibling 'release_calendar' or 'lookup_any_title'. The agent is left to guess whether this returns a single number versus a full schedule.
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.