om_properlyKort beskrivelse af Properly.fm og Damsgaard FM, med links. Properly.fm er platformen, og rådgivningen er dgfm.dk.
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": "om_properly"
}
}| 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 and openWorldHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered by structured data, and the description adds essentially nothing beyond that. It does not say whether the returned text is static or fetched, how long it is, or how the embedded links are presented — all of which matter since there is no output schema.
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 the subject of the tool front-loaded ('Kort beskrivelse af Properly.fm og Damsgaard FM'), and no filler. The second sentence is arguably redundant corporate context, but it is cheap and does disambiguate dgfm.dk.
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-parameter, read-only informational tool this is close to sufficient: it names the two entities covered and states that links are included. The remaining gap is that no output schema exists and the description doesn't specify the exact shape of the response beyond 'kort beskrivelse med links'.
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 document; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly does not invent inputs.
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 the resource ('Properly.fm og Damsgaard FM') and the returned content type ('Kort beskrivelse ... med links'), but never gives an explicit action verb — an agent must infer that the tool returns static blurb text rather than performing an operation. It does partially separate the two entities (platform vs. rådgivning/dgfm.dk), which is useful against siblings like 'oversigt' and 'side', but the distinction is not framed as tool selection guidance.
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 statement of when to call this rather than the siblings 'oversigt', 'side' or 'soeg', and no prerequisites or exclusion conditions. The line 'Properly.fm er platformen, og rådgivningen er dgfm.dk' is definitional (about the company) rather than usage guidance for the agent.
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.