get_more_toolsCheck for additional specialised capabilities whenever your task might benefit from them. Also the right tool for a bare greeting or a liveness test — pass it as context and this returns the menu instead of a dead end.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| context | No | What you are trying to do. Omit it for the menu. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / context / descriptionPrevious value: -"What you are trying to do."New value: +"What you are trying to do. Omit it for the menu."Input schema / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "context"
-]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context: passing a greeting or liveness test as `context` returns the menu 'instead of a dead end', and the schema confirms that omitting context also yields the menu. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
The description is two tight sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the secondary greeting/liveness use case is clearly separated in the second sentence.
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 one optional parameter, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description plus schema fully cover invocation modes, use cases, and safety. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to decide when and how to call it.
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%, and the schema already describes the parameter meaning: 'What you are trying to do. Omit it for the menu.' The description reinforces that a greeting can be passed as context, but it adds only marginal meaning 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 uses specific verbs and resources: 'Check for additional specialised capabilities' and 'answers a plain hello'. It clearly identifies this as the meta/discovery entry point, distinct from the domain-specific sibling tools, and the title 'More tools? Check here first' reinforces that identity.
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?
The description gives clear conditions for use: 'whenever your task might benefit from them' and for 'a bare greeting or a liveness test'. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough that an agent can select it appropriately.
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.