parse_qrisParse EMVCo QRIS payload and validate CRC.
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": {
"payload": "<payload>"
},
"name": "parse_qris"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| payload | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes one genuinely new behavioral fact — that CRC validation occurs — but does not say what happens when validation fails (error vs. partial result) or what the parsed output looks like.
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?
A single tight sentence with the core action front-loaded and no filler. It is arguably under-specified rather than padded, so the brevity is not wasteful but leaves gaps.
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 and no documentation of the return shape, error behavior on CRC mismatch, or relation to qris_to_dynamic, the definition is too thin for a parsing tool an agent must chain into a workflow. The agent cannot predict what it will get back.
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 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it only partially does so by implying the single 'payload' argument is an EMVCo QRIS string. It adds no format details, size expectations, or examples of a valid payload beyond that hint.
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 gives a specific verb ('Parse') and resource ('EMVCo QRIS payload') and adds the validation step ('validate CRC'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not, however, distinguish this from the sibling qris_to_dynamic, which plausibly operates on the same payload type.
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 use this versus qris_to_dynamic or any other sibling, nor any stated prerequisite (e.g. that the input must be a raw EMVCo string). The agent must infer the usage context entirely.
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.