traces: who left what at your door, and the way back to them.
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": "traces"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | No | Your Plazmi key, pz_…; only needed when this chat doesn't remember you. | |
| name | No | ||
| since | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only a faint hint that results relate to who contacted you and how to reach them back — no scope, filtering, pagination, or return-shape detail beyond that.
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?
It is short, but the single sentence is figurative and front-loads nothing operational. Brevity here comes from under-specification rather than from efficient communication.
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 tool with three parameters (two undocumented), no output schema, and no clarifying annotations beyond safety hints, the description leaves too much unexplained. An agent would have to guess both the data returned and the meaning of the optional filters.
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 only 33%: only `key` is documented, while `name` and `since` are bare. The description does not compensate at all — it never explains what `name` scopes (the visitor? the subject?) or what `since` bounds (a timestamp? a count?).
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 restates the tool name in metaphorical form ("who left what at your door, and the way back to them") rather than stating a concrete verb and resource. An agent cannot determine from this whether traces lists visitors, gifts, referrals, or something else, nor how it differs from siblings like `inbox`, `gifts`, or `visit`.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of any alternative tool. The riddle-like phrasing gives the agent nothing to route on when choosing among the many similarly named siblings.
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.