Manage real-time push subscriptions and event listening.
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": {
"action": "<action>"
},
"name": "core_realtime"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | ||
| params | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is known. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether 'attach' creates a persistent subscription, whether 'detach' cleans up server-side state, whether events are queued or dropped, or what any action returns.
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 single sentence is compact and front-loaded with no filler, which is structurally fine. However, it is concise at the cost of substance — under-specification rather than efficient communication for a five-action tool.
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?
A multi-action tool with five enum values, an opaque free-form params object, nested objects, and no output schema requires substantial behavioral and per-action documentation. The single sentence covers none of that, so an agent cannot reliably select or invoke it without trial and error.
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 0% and the 'params' property is an untyped free-form object with nested objects, so the schema provides essentially no semantics. The description is the only place that could explain what each action expects in 'params', and it says nothing — leaving the required 'action' enum values and the params payload entirely unexplained.
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 names a resource area (real-time push subscriptions / event listening) and a verb ('Manage'), but 'Manage' is a catch-all for a tool with five distinct actions (status, attach, detach, probe, confirm). It gives no hint which action does what, and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like core_comm or core_tunnel, so the agent must open the schema to learn the tool's actual capabilities.
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 when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternative among the 19 siblings. The five enum actions imply distinct usage contexts (subscribing, unsubscribing, checking state), but the description never maps an intent to an action.
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.