Berechnet den Leistungsverlust durch Fehlanpassung (SWR/VSWR)
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": {
"swr": "<swr>"
},
"name": "calculate_swr_loss"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| swr | Yes | SWR-Wert (z.B. 1.5, 2.0, 3.0) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the purpose without mentioning output format, units, or limitations. Even for a simple calculator, the lack of any detail on what the function returns or how it behaves with invalid input is a significant gap.
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, focused sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. It contains no redundant information and is front-loaded with the core action.
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?
This is a simple one-parameter calculator, but the description is still somewhat incomplete. There is no output schema, and the description does not indicate what the calculated value represents (e.g., loss in dB or percentage). However, the clear schema and simple nature make this an adequate baseline, not a major deficiency.
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 100% (the 'swr' parameter has a description with example values). The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics. According to the rubric, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not exceed that.
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 clearly states the tool calculates power loss due to SWR/VSWR mismatch. It uses a specific verb ('Berechnet') and resource ('Leistungsverlust durch Fehlanpassung'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like calculate_cable_loss and calculate_wavelength.
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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool instead of alternatives, nor does it give any contextual scenarios or exclusions. It only states the core function.
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.