halal_getGet a single halal penyelia record by BPJPH id_penyelia (UUID).
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": "halal_get"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | UUID id_penyelia |
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 and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the lookup-key framing and no extra behavior such as missing-record handling, response shape, or whether 'penyelia' maps to a supervising body record.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. Brevity is close to the minimum needed, though the domain term 'penyelia' is left unexplained.
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 single-parameter read tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin: it never says what fields a halal penyelia record returns or how an invalid/not-found UUID behaves, which matters for an agent composing a lookup call.
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 100% and the single parameter is already documented as 'UUID id_penyelia'. The description restates the same information (BPJPH id_penyelia, UUID) without adding format examples or constraints beyond the schema.
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 a specific verb and resource ('Get a single halal penyelia record') and narrows the lookup key to 'BPJPH id_penyelia (UUID)'. It implicitly contrasts with the search-style sibling halal_search by specifying a single record, though it never names that sibling.
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?
Usage is implied: fetch one halal record when you already hold its BPJPH id_penyelia. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over halal_search, nor any note about what to do if the UUID is unknown.
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.