Get complete metadata for an exact registered signal name.
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": {
"signal_name": "<signal_name>"
},
"name": "get_signal"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| signal_name | Yes | Signal name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds only that the returned payload is 'complete metadata' for an exact name — it does not say what happens when the name is unknown, whether matching is case-sensitive, or what the metadata includes.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the key constraint ('exact registered') is placed where an agent will read it first. It is lean to the point of being slightly under-informative rather than verbose.
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?
This is a simple one-parameter read tool whose annotations handle safety and idempotency, so little more is needed. The main remaining gap is that no output schema exists and 'complete metadata' is never enumerated, so an agent cannot anticipate the response shape.
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 nominally 100%, but the sole parameter's schema text is just 'Signal name', so the description's 'exact registered signal name' is what communicates exact-match semantics and the requirement that the signal already be registered. Useful, but thin — no format, casing, or delimiter guidance is provided.
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 ('Get') and resource ('complete metadata for a registered signal'), and the qualifier 'exact registered signal name' distinguishes an exact-name lookup from fuzzy siblings like search_signals and match_signals. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.
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?
The word 'exact' implies this is the lookup path when you already know the precise signal name, with search_signals/match_signals covering discovery, but no alternative is named and no when-not-to-use condition or error behavior for unknown names is given. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.
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.