compare_presentationsCompare two or more authorised presentations side by side (ids as for get_item).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| decision_id | No | ||
| presentation_ids | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / decision_idAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null
+}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 that presentations must be 'authorised', implying a permission requirement not in annotations, and clarifies the ID format by referencing get_item. It does not describe output behavior, but the output schema exists, so that is acceptable.
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, direct sentence that front-loads the primary action and includes a clarifying reference. No filler or repetition; the structure is efficient.
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?
The tool has 2 parameters and an output schema, so the description need not detail return values. However, because schema coverage is 0% and only presentation_ids is partially addressed, the description is incomplete for correct invocation. The optional decision_id is completely undocumented, making it unclear whether or how an agent should populate 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'ids as for get_item', which gives partial meaning to presentation_ids, but does not explain decision_id at all. With two parameters and no schema descriptions, this is a significant gap that leaves the optional decision_id parameter ambiguous.
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 clearly states the verb 'Compare' and the resource 'presentations', and indicates the action is side-by-side comparison. It references 'ids as for get_item' to clarify the ID format, which adds precision. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools beyond the naming, though there is no obvious overlapping tool.
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 by the description—comparing presentations is a distinct operation. The reference to get_item suggests the same ID scheme, but there is no explicit statement about when to use this tool versus alternatives or any conditions that would favor a different tool. This leaves an agent to infer the scope.
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.