One client's copy of a program, with its items.
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": "get_program_enrollment"
}
}| 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?
readOnlyHint=true already establishes safe read behavior. The description adds only that the result is one client's copy with items, without explaining permissions, what items include, or error behavior. It does not contradict annotations but adds minimal behavioral context.
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 a single short fragment with no wasted words, but it is too terse to function as a complete definition. Its brevity comes at the cost of missing essential information rather than efficient communication.
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 one-parameter read tool, the definition should at least identify the id and clarify the returned enrollment/items. It omits both, and with no output schema the description must carry more of that burden.
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 sole required parameter id has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never says whether id is an enrollment id, client id, or program id. This leaves the agent unable to know what identifier to supply.
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 identifies the resource as a single client's program enrollment with its items, but it is a noun phrase with no verb and does not distinguish this from get_program or list_program_enrollments. An agent can infer retrieval from the tool name, but the description alone does not state the action.
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 when-to-use guidance or alternatives are given. It does not say to use this for a specific enrollment id versus list_program_enrollments for multiple enrollments or get_program for the program template.
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.