Free sample: a real condominium record and an extract of a real list of mandates ending soon. Same shapes as syndic_lookup and syndic_echeances.
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": "syndic_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 disclosure burden. It does add useful context: the payload is free, it contains real-world sample data, and its shape mirrors the live tools. It does not state that it takes no arguments, that results are fixed/static, or that no authentication or quota applies, all of which an agent would want to know before choosing it.
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 with no filler, and the key point (it is a free sample) is front-loaded ahead of the shape comparison.
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 zero-argument, read-only demo tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys both the content and the structure of the return value by pointing at the sibling tools. The one gap is that it never explicitly says the output is static sample data rather than a live snapshot.
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 has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly avoids inventing parameter semantics.
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?
"Free sample" plus the enumeration of what the sample contains (a condominium record and an extract of mandates ending soon) tells an agent this returns fixed demo data rather than live results. Referencing syndic_lookup and syndic_echeances establishes the response shapes, which distinguishes it from those real-query siblings. It stops short of a literal verb such as "returns", so it is clear rather than crisp.
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 the intended use — exploring shapes or smoke-testing before calling the real tools — but the description never states when to use this versus syndic_lookup or syndic_echeances, nor does it say the data is static and unsuitable for real answers. 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.