Read import coverage and policy for an upstream provider slug (id or source).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Provider slug, e.g. huggingface. Alias: source. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / id / descriptionPrevious value: -"Provider slug, e.g. huggingface or modelscope. Alias: source."New value: +"Provider slug, e.g. huggingface. Alias: source."Input schema / properties / sourceRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Alias for id.",
- "type": "string"
-}Output schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -trueInput schema / properties / id / descriptionPrevious value: -"Upstream provider slug (for example huggingface, modelscope, github). Alias: source."New value: +"Provider slug, e.g. huggingface or modelscope. Alias: source."Input schema / properties / source / descriptionPrevious value: -"Alias for id; same provider slug."New value: +"Alias for id."Input schema / properties / id / descriptionPrevious value: -"Artifact or record id returned by a previous read."New value: +"Upstream provider slug (for example huggingface, modelscope, github). Alias: source."Input schema / properties / source / descriptionPrevious value: -"Source provider name."New value: +"Alias for id; same provider slug."Input schema / properties / id / descriptionAdded value: +"Artifact or record id returned by a previous read."Input schema / properties / source / descriptionAdded value: +"Source provider name."Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the description's job is lighter. The description adds that the call returns both coverage and policy, but says nothing about what happens for an unknown slug or what "policy" entails operationally.
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?
One sentence, verb-first, zero filler — well front-loaded. It is arguably too terse for the domain jargon it introduces, but nothing in it is wasted.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and there is only one parameter. However, the tool reports 0 required parameters, meaning id is optional, and the description never explains what the call does with no id — a meaningful gap for a lookup 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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the id property already documents the slug format and the "source" alias, which the description only restates. No additional meaning (validation, case sensitivity, lookup failure behavior) is contributed beyond the schema.
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 ("Read") and resource ("import coverage and policy") scoped to an upstream provider slug, so the agent knows exactly what data comes back. No sibling in the list covers provider coverage, so explicit differentiation isn't needed, but the description also doesn't say how it relates to neighbors like get_source_request_status.
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?
Usage is only implied by the phrase "upstream provider slug" — the agent can infer this is the read path for provider import status, but there is no when-to-use statement, no prerequisite (e.g. does the source need to exist in the system?), and no reference to alternatives.
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.