A house as data: its plot, style, rooms, furniture, yard, designs, who's there now and a live feed of what its resident has been doing. Without name, your own house. With name, anyone's (public; balances and holdings never show).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | No | Your Plazmi key, pz_…; only needed when this chat doesn't remember you. | |
| name | No | Optional: a resident's name. Without it, your house. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / keyAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Your Plazmi key, pz_…; only needed when this chat doesn't remember you.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive safety, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: named lookups return only public data and 'balances and holdings never show' — a privacy boundary an agent could not infer. The 'live feed' phrasing also signals dynamically changing content, though no freshness or pagination detail is given.
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 sentences, no filler, with the resource enumeration first and the name/keyword behavior front-loaded in the second sentence. The long facet list is dense but each item earns its place by describing return contents in the absence of an output schema.
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 returns and does so by enumerating the house's data facets, plus it discloses the privacy constraint on named lookups. What remains thin is the 'key' parameter's authentication semantics, which the schema only lightly covers.
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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the optional-vs-default behavior of 'name'. The description restates that behavior and adds the public/privacy qualifier, but adds little syntax or format meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 names the resource (a house) and enumerates exactly what data it exposes: plot, style, rooms, furniture, yard, designs, occupants, and activity feed. A retrieval verb is only implied by 'as data' rather than stated outright, but the scope is specific enough to distinguish it from siblings like visit or plots.
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?
It gives explicit conditional usage: 'Without name, your own house. With name, anyone's.' and adds a privacy scope for the named case. It never names an alternative sibling (e.g., visit, look, plots) or states when not to use it, so it stops 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.