Workflow planner: field catalog, required parameters, next_actions, and non-binding examples. External agents must choose their own name, symbol, and economics.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| locale | No | ||
| category | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| business_name | No | ||
| preferred_style | No | ||
| target_audience | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects and output nature. It mentions 'non-binding examples' and that agents must make their own choices, suggesting a non-mutating planning tool, but it does not explicitly state whether any state is changed or what the return structure looks like.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and a clarifying constraint. Every word earns its place; no fluff.
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 six optional parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is too terse to fully guide an agent. It lacks information on how the parameters are used, the format of the generated catalog, and the expected scope of the output.
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 input schema has six parameters with no descriptions, and the description does not explain their meaning or how they influence the generated output. Parameter semantics are entirely absent beyond the parameter names.
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 positions the tool as a workflow planner that outputs a field catalog, required parameters, next actions, and examples. The name 'generate_program_defaults' reinforces the purpose, and it distinguishes from siblings like create_loyalty_program by focusing on planning rather than execution.
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 implies usage in a planning workflow but does not explicitly state when to use it or mention alternative tools. The note about external agents choosing their own name/symbol/economics provides a hint but no direct guidance on prerequisites or context.
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.