free_postmortem_sampleFREE schema preview. Paid postmortems_search $0.01; agent_postmortems pack $12.
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": "free_postmortem_sample"
}
}| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: this call is free and it is a preview of a paid dataset, with the price points of the paid routes. It stops short of saying how much data comes back or whether results are static samples.
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 fragments, front-loaded with FREE and containing no filler. The pricing clause earns its place as a routing cue, though the phrasing is telegraphic enough that the core purpose ends up underexplained.
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 should convey what a caller actually receives, but the row count and field content appear only in the title. For a trivial zero-param sample tool the description is serviceable, but an agent reading only the description would not know it returns two post-mortem rows.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the empty schema with additionalProperties=false is self-explanatory. Baseline 4 applies, with no parameter meaning lost.
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?
"FREE schema preview" names no verb and no returned resource; the actual content (2 curated agent post-mortem rows) lives only in the title. The references to postmortems_search and the agent_postmortems pack let an agent infer the subject matter is post-mortem data, but the purpose is implied rather than stated.
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 word FREE plus the paid alternatives implies "preview the schema here before paying for postmortems_search or the $12 pack," which is a usable routing signal. It never explicitly states when to call this versus the paid tools, and other free_*_sample siblings are not distinguished.
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.