Hent kurv.
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": {
"id": "<id>"
},
"name": "get_cart"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| meta | No | UCP request metadata, fx {"ucp-agent":{"profile":"https://..."}}. |
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 burden of behavioral disclosure, and it discloses nothing. It does not say whether the call errors on a missing cart, whether authentication or metadata is required, or what the response contains.
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 words are technically concise but represent under-specification rather than economy; nothing is front-loaded because there is nothing to load. No sentence in the definition earns a place beyond restating the name.
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?
The tool takes a required identifier plus a nested metadata object, has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must carry the full explanation. Two words are completely inadequate for a call that presumably requires an authenticated cart lookup.
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 50%: the nested meta object is documented, but the required id parameter has no schema description. The description adds no meaning to either parameter, not even which cart identifier format is expected.
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?
"Hent kurv" is Danish for "fetch cart" and simply restates the tool name in another language rather than describing the operation. It gives no scope, response shape, or differentiation from siblings such as get_checkout or get_product.
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 guidance on when to call this versus the checkout, create_cart, or update_cart siblings. The definition offers no context, conditions, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely from the tool name.
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.