Free sample: real output computed while a product was in its grace period. Same shape as phyto_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": "phyto_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 carries the full burden, and it does disclose something useful: the output is real but was computed while a product was in its grace period, and it is free. It does not say whether it is static/cached, whether calling it has any side effects, or whether billing truly does not apply, which matters for an unannotated tool.
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, front-loaded with the key fact (it is a free sample) and immediately followed by the return-shape equivalence. No filler, no repetition.
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?
There are no parameters and no output schema, so the description's job is to tell the agent what comes back; it delegates that entirely to 'Same shape as phyto_lookup' rather than naming any fields or result characteristics. For a trivial sample tool that is mostly adequate, but an agent cannot predict the payload without consulting the sibling.
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 and the schema confirms an empty properties object, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. Baseline for a 0-parameter tool is 4.
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 states concretely that this returns a real sample output in the same shape as phyto_lookup, which lets an agent distinguish it from that sibling without opening a schema. It lacks an explicit verb, but 'Free sample ... Same shape as phyto_lookup' makes the resource and its relationship to the sibling clear.
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 'Free sample' implies this is for trying out or previewing output rather than performing a real lookup, and naming phyto_lookup hints that the sibling is the production path. However, it never explicitly says when to use this versus phyto_lookup or whether the real lookup should be preferred for actual results.
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.