Free sample: a real answer for one county, same shape as disasters_lookup.
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": "disasters_example"
}
}| 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, the description bears the full burden. It does add useful signals that are not in structured data – that the call is free and that the response mirrors disasters_lookup – but it omits whether the call is read-only, whether the county is fixed or randomly chosen, latency, and rate limiting. For an unannotated tool, this leaves the most important behavior unspecified.
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 short sentence with the key qualifier ("free sample") front-loaded. It is efficient, though "same shape as disasters_lookup" is compact at the cost of some clarity.
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?
The tool is simple – zero parameters, no output schema – so not much is required. Still, an agent cannot tell whether the sample is a fixed county, whether it varies, or whether it is safe to call repeatedly, which matters for a demo tool meant to establish the response contract.
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 no parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed to get the sample answer, with no misleading hints of optional filters.
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?
It names the tool as a "free sample" returning "a real answer for one county," and it points to disasters_lookup for the response shape. However, it never says which county or whether that scope is fixed, so the agent knows it is a demo but not what it will actually get back.
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 "sample" implies a demonstration or trial usage, and the reference to disasters_lookup hints that real lookups belong there. There is no explicit framing of when to use this versus the live tool, and no note on whether repeated calls give the same example.
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.