Detailed record for one coffee: roast level, body/acidity/sweetness profile, flavor notes, suited brew methods, food and brew pairings, price, and retailer names with prices (no purchase links). Accepts a Percolate id or a name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id_or_name | Yes | Coffee id or a name like 'Bean Box Taste of New York City' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / id_or_name / maxLengthAdded value: +120Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely non-structural context: the exact shape of the returned record and the explicit exclusion 'no purchase links,' which sets expectations about what the response will and won't contain.
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?
A single dense sentence that front-loads the purpose and then enumerates returned fields. The field list is long but each item earns its place given there is no output schema; no filler or redundant phrasing.
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?
With no output schema, the description correctly carries the burden of describing the return payload in detail, including prices and retailer names, and notes the absence of purchase links. It omits only edge-case behavior such as what happens when the id or name is not found.
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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter, so the schema already documents the id/name input and gives a name example. The description adds only the minor clarification that the id is a 'Percolate' id, which is marginal value over 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?
Opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Detailed record for one coffee.' The singular, detail-oriented framing cleanly separates it from list-oriented siblings like search_coffees and compare_coffees without needing to name them.
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 statement of when to use this tool versus search_coffees, compare_coffees, or find_similar. 'Accepts a Percolate id or a name' is invocation detail, not selection guidance, so an agent must infer routing from the tool 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.