get_helpFree. Short usage index. Then search_components to pick ids.
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_help"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile needs no repetition. "Free" adds genuinely new context (no credit/cost impact) and "Short" hints at response size, but the description never says what the index actually contains or how an agent should read it.
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?
Three short fragments, front-loaded with the key fact (free) and the next action; nothing is wasted. The telegraphic style is efficient but edges toward under-specification rather than elegance.
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?
A zero-parameter read-only tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema needs little prose, and the description covers cost, output nature, and the natural next step. The only missing piece is a plain statement of what the usage index contains.
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; nothing about arguments needs explaining and the description correctly implies no input is required.
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?
"Short usage index" identifies what the tool returns and the name's 'help' frames it, so an agent can tell this is the documentation/onboarding entry point. However it is a noun phrase with no verb and never says 'returns help content for this API', leaving the purpose only implied.
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?
"Then search_components to pick ids" explicitly names the follow-up sibling and establishes this as the first step in a two-step workflow. It does not state exclusions (e.g., when not to bother calling it), so it stops short of a 5.
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.