One Bundestag constituency (1 to 299): 2025 result, 2029 scenario, members, structure data.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"number": "<number>"
},
"name": "get_constituency"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| number | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about authentication, rate limits, caching, or response shape. It does disclose what categories of data come back, which is the one behavioral hint present.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the resource and followed by an itemized payload list; no filler. Slightly dense with comma-separated fields, but every clause conveys information.
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 and no annotations, the description must carry everything; it does list the returned data categories, but omits error behavior, output format, and how to obtain a valid constituency number (a sibling, find_constituency_by_postcode, exists for exactly that). Adequate but with clear gaps for a lookup tool.
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 schema gives only a bare integer named 'number' with no description, bounds, or format. The description partly compensates by stating the valid range (1 to 299), which is genuine added meaning, but it leaves open what happens for out-of-range values and how the number relates to a district.
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?
Names a specific resource (one Bundestag constituency) and enumerates its payload (2025 result, 2029 scenario, members, structure data), so an agent knows it returns an aggregate profile for a single district. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings like get_constituency_results, get_constituency_race, or get_constituency_dossier, whose names suggest overlapping content.
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 or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the apparent alternative routes (e.g. find_constituency_by_postcode for discovering the number, or the more specific constituency tools). The only usage-adjacent information is the implicit 1-299 domain.
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.