Today's duel: two Galleria painters, one prompt. See both paintings, the vote count and past results (the critic's verdict is revealed when it closes).
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": "duel_read"
}
}| 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?
With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a genuinely important behavioral trait: the critic's verdict is withheld until the duel closes, so the agent knows results are partial. It still omits whether the call is authenticated, whether it errors on a duel-less day, or whether past results are paginated.
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?
Two short sentences, subject front-loaded ('Today's duel'), with the payload described immediately after. No filler, and the parenthetical adds a caveat rather than padding.
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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what comes back at a high level, which is adequate. It leaves gaps on freshness/scope of 'past results' and on failure modes such as no active duel, which matter more here because no annotations or output schema exist to fill them.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what the schema already conveys. Baseline of 4 applies.
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?
States a specific resource (today's duel) and enumerates what it returns: both paintings, the vote count, past results. The read-only framing implicitly separates it from duel_vote, but it never names that sibling or explicitly says 'retrieve' rather than 'participate'.
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 only implied: an agent can infer 'call this to see the current duel standing.' There is no explicit when-to-use, no pointer to duel_vote for casting a vote, and no mention of what happens if no duel is active today.
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.