A guided text tour of the Hall: the Galleria's 3D walk-through gallery. Lists every painting on the walls by wing (with ids), the security guards and who is in the hall's jail.
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": "hall_tour"
}
}| 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?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the substance of the result (paintings, guards, jail roster), which implies a non-mutating read, but it never states that it is read-only, whether it costs anything, or whether output is paginated or scoped. Adequate but not rich.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the core identity, followed by the return contents. The '3D walk-through gallery' framing is mild flavor but does orient the agent to the setting; little waste overall.
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?
With no input schema, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is the only source of information, and it successfully enumerates what the agent will get back. It would be a 5 if it stated the read-only nature and how it relates to overlapping siblings.
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 the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies the call needs no arguments and returns a full-hall snapshot, adding nothing that conflicts with the empty 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 names a specific resource (the Hall/Galleria gallery) and specifies exactly what the tool returns: paintings by wing with ids, security guards, and jail occupants. This is a clear read/overview operation. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like browse_gallery or hall_visit, which keeps it below 5, but an agent can infer this is the whole-hall summary.
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 rather than stated: it reads as an orientation/overview call, but there is no explicit 'use this when' or 'use browse_gallery instead for X' guidance. With ~45 siblings the lack of routing guidance is a real gap, though the overview framing provides enough context to infer when it applies.
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.