Get a per-formation deep dive (e.g. Wolfcamp in TX, SCOOP in OK): well count, active operators, top operators, primary counties, recent permits + DUCs targeting this formation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Formation slug, lowercase hyphenated | |
| state | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the transparency burden. It reveals that the tool returns an aggregated formation-level profile rather than raw records, listing several output components. However, it does not state read-only behavior, absence of side effects, pagination, or data limitations, so behavioral coverage is only partial.
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 description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists the most important output categories. There is no fluff or redundant restatement of the tool name.
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 output schema or annotations, the description still provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool: it names the required conceptual inputs and the main return dimensions. It falls slightly short of a 5 because the exact response shape, field names, and any limits are left unspecified.
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 50%, with only the slug parameter described. The description adds meaningful context by mapping real formations to states (Wolfcamp to TX, SCOOP to OK) and clarifying that results are 'targeting this formation,' which helps the agent assign values. It does not fully elaborate on slug conventions, but the schema pattern already covers that.
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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Get a per-formation deep dive,' and gives concrete examples (Wolfcamp in TX, SCOOP in OK). It also enumerates the returned content (well count, operators, counties, permits, DUCs), making its purpose clear and distinguishable from the county-, operator-, and state-level sibling tools.
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 context is implied through 'per-formation deep dive' and the state/formation examples, but there is no explicit statement about when to prefer this tool over siblings like get_top_operators or get_duc_inventory. It does not name alternatives or exclude conditions.
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.