Validate a Moroccan ICE number (15 digits). Returns valid or invalid.
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": {
"ice": "<ice>"
},
"name": "check_ice"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ice | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return contract (valid or invalid), but does not say what validation actually checks (length only vs. checksum/prefix) or whether the call has side effects, so the disclosure is partial.
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?
Two short sentences with the input constraint and output stated up front. Nothing redundant or padded.
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?
For a single-parameter validator with no output schema, the description covers what it does, the input shape, and the result. It falls short only on validation specifics and on routing relative to the check_if sibling.
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 coverage is 0% and the single 'ice' parameter is an undescribed string, so the description must compensate. It partially does by stating the required 15-digit format, but adds no examples, accepted separators, or error behavior for wrong-length input.
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?
States a specific verb (validate) and resource (Moroccan ICE number) plus the format constraint (15 digits) and the return values (valid/invalid). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling check_if by resource, though it never names or contrasts the sibling explicitly.
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 use this versus check_if, no prerequisites, and no statement of what happens with malformed or non-Moroccan input. The agent is left to infer the use case from the name 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.