Inspect CSV text for free.
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": {
"csv_text": "<csv_text>"
},
"name": "diagnose_csv"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| csv_text | Yes | ||
| filename | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safe-read profile, so "for free" adds little beyond restating that it is non-mutating. Nothing is said about the 250,000-character input cap, whether the text is stored or sent anywhere, or what kind of report is produced.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is terse, but the concision itself is not the defect – the missing information is scored under other dimensions.
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 two undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations beyond readOnlyHint, the description carries the full burden and delivers almost nothing. An agent cannot predict what diagnostic information comes back or how to act on it.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so both csv_text and filename are undocumented in structured form and the description does not compensate at all. It never explains the maxLength constraint, whether filename affects parsing/dialect guessing, or that filename is optional.
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?
"Inspect CSV text" gives a verb and a resource, so an agent can tell it operates on CSV content rather than ICS or SRT. But "inspect" is vague about what is actually checked or returned (syntax errors? dialect detection? row counts?), so the purpose stays at the level of the title rather than explaining the diagnostic outcome.
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 on when to choose this over sibling repair_csv, or over diagnose_ics/diagnose_srt beyond the obvious format difference. There is no statement of preconditions or what to do with the result.
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.