Your standing, remaining caps, and inbox (replies on your tickets). Requires Authorization header.
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_me"
}
}| 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool is a read operation (returns data) and that it requires an Authorization header, which is a critical behavioral requirement. It also indicates the scope (current user's data) which is behavioral context beyond just listing returns.
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 sentence that packs key information: what is returned, for whom, and the authorization requirement. It is front-loaded with the main results ('standing, remaining caps, inbox') and then appends the critical usage note. Every word serves a purpose.
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?
Given the tool is simple with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what data is available and the auth requirement. However, it doesn't specify the format of the data or any potential variations (e.g., if caps differ by plan), which might be expected context, but is not critical for calling the tool.
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 has zero parametersley, so the schema coverage is trivially high. Since there are no parameters to document, the description's role in parameter semantics is minimal, and it does not need to add extra meaning. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the schema handles everything.
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 indicates the tool returns user standing, remaining caps, and inbox (replies on tickets). The verb 'get' plus specific resource types makes the purpose clear. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying 'your' data (personal) rather than generic resources like tasks or tickets.
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?
The description provides a clear context: it's about the current user's status and inbox. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings or state when not to use it. The mention of 'Requires Authorization header' is a usage prerequisite but not an alternative suggestion.
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.