Survival services by slug
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": {
"session_id": "<session_id>",
"slug": "<slug>"
},
"name": "order_service"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | ||
| session_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or any operational details. For a tool that likely performs mutations (ordering), this is a serious omission. The description is a fragment, not a behavioral disclosure.
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?
The description is extremely brief, but brevity is not conciseness when it omits necessary information. It is a single dependent phrase without a main clause. While it is short, it under-specifies the tool's purpose and parameters, making it more of an unhelpful label than a structured description.
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?
With only two required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description must provide significant context. It fails to explain what the tool does, when to use it, or what the response contains. The phrase 'Survival services by slug' is not enough for an agent to reliably select or invoke this tool.
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 schema has two required string parameters, slug and session_id, but neither is described in the schema (coverage 0%). The description mentions 'by slug', implying slug is an identifier, but provides no context for what a slug represents or why session_id is needed. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly populate the parameters.
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 'Survival services by slug' provides a resource (survival services) and an access method (by slug), but no verb or action. It is unclear whether this tool retrieves, creates, or updates orders. The name 'order_service' suggests a broad ordering capability, but the description fails to specify the operation, making it vague and indistinguishable from possible sibling tools.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like read_menu or read_pricing. There is no context about use cases, prerequisites, or situations where this tool is preferable. The description leaves the agent to infer usage entirely from the name and sparse phrase.
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.