Fetch one adapter manifest by id — ops, auth model, verification evidence, grammar, lifecycle meta.
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": {
"id": "<id>"
},
"name": "wide_adapter"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by enumerating what the manifest contains -- ops, auth model, verification evidence, grammar, lifecycle meta -- effectively serving as a return-content summary in the absence of an output schema. It does not say what happens for an unknown id, which keeps it below a 5.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the operation and target, followed by a compact em-dash list of payload fields. No filler or redundancy.
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 simple single-record getter with annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the payload contents that would otherwise be missing without an output schema. The main remaining gap is behavior on a nonexistent id, which is minor for a read-only, idempotent lookup.
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?
There is a single required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the burden. 'By id' identifies it as an adapter identifier, which is the minimum needed, but adds no format, source, or validation details beyond the schema's 'string' type.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource -- 'Fetch one adapter manifest by id' -- which unambiguously marks this as a singular lookup, implicitly distinct from the list/stat siblings. It stops short of naming an alternative, but the singular-by-id framing is enough for an agent to pick it apart from wide_adapters.
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 is only implied: fetch a single adapter when you already have its id. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over wide_adapters (listing) or wide_adapter_stats, and no prerequisite or exclusion guidance.
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.