Ask the help bot about the store, Gates, the board or the API. LLM-generated, grounded in the docs.
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": {
"question": "<question>"
},
"name": "ask"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| question | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag this as read-only and closed-world, but the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: answers are LLM-generated and grounded in the docs, warning the agent that output is synthesized rather than authoritative. It doesn't state the return shape or whether citations are included, which keeps it short of a 5.
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, scope front-loaded before the grounding caveat, with no filler. The only unclear term ("the board") is domain jargon the tool's own audience would recognize.
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 one-parameter, no-output-schema Q&A tool with read-only annotations, the description covers what it is, what it answers about, and how answers are produced — enough to invoke it correctly. Missing only a note on what the response looks like or when to prefer a sibling like `docs`.
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 coverage is 0% for the single `question` parameter, so the description must compensate and does only partially: "Ask the help bot about..." implies a natural-language query, but it says nothing about phrasing, length, or whether partial sentences are acceptable. Adequate but thin for a 0%-coverage parameter.
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 verb ("Ask the help bot") and an explicit scope (store, Gates, the board, the API), so an agent knows this is a documentation-Q&A tool rather than a data operation. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like `docs`, `about`, or `tools`, which also appear to surface explanatory content.
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?
It gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not, and never mentions alternatives (e.g., use `docs` for raw reference pages vs. this for natural-language questions). The intent is only implied by naming the topics the bot covers.
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.