soulbound_plansWhich networks soulbound collections, FloorFeed Badges and Moments run on today, and the plans with what each includes.
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": "soulbound_plans"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
While annotations cover the safe, read-only nature of the operation, the description adds crucial behavioral context by specifying that the plans include 'what each includes,' indicating a deep, content-rich lookup rather than a simple list of IDs.
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 definition is extremely concise, delivering maximum information (resource, asset types, data depth) in a single, structured sentence with zero filler.
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?
Given that the tool has zero parameters and a read-only nature is confirmed by annotations, the description is complete. It effectively defines the sole use case for this meta-lookup tool.
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?
With zero input parameters, the description cannot provide semantic meaning beyond what the empty schema provides. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate for a tool with no arguments.
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 is highly specific, naming the three types of assets (collections, Badges, Moments) and the specific type of metadata provided (networks and associated plans). This clearly defines the resource and scope.
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 focuses entirely on what data is returned rather than when the tool should be used. However, given the number of list and fetch tools in the sibling set, its niche is implied.
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.