Привітання, можливості та плани MCP цієї території.
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": "get_welcome"
}
}| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies an informational read but does not state that there are no side effects, nor what form the 'capabilities and plans' content takes. For a no-annotation tool this leaves meaningful gaps.
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?
A single short sentence with no padding, front-loading the content list immediately. It is efficient, though so terse that almost nothing is stated.
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?
Low complexity (zero params, no output schema) means the bar is modest, and the description does enumerate the returned content. However, it gives no signal about when this tool is the right pick over the six sibling territory tools.
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, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Schema coverage is already 100% on an empty object.
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 names the resource it exposes (greeting, capabilities, plans of the territory's MCP) but is a bare noun phrase with no verb, so it never says it *returns* these things. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_basic_profile and get_identity by topic, but only loosely.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no indication of whether this is an entry point, onboarding call, or fallback, and no comparison to get_identity/get_basic_profile which cover overlapping territory information. The agent must infer the purpose from the noun list alone.
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.