Mycel Agent Hire MCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add one genuinely useful behavioral fact — the call does not consume points — and implies a read-only operation, but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or the shape of the returned balance.

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 short sentence with zero waste, front-loading the action and ending with the cost-free guarantee.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does and the one behavioral trait that matters (no point cost). It could say a bit more about what the returned balance looks like, since no output schema exists to cover that.

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 this dimension hits the baseline of 4. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed by scoping the query to the calling API key.

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+resource: query the points balance of the account bound to the current API key. That is clearly distinct from siblings like mycel_hire_agent or mycel_task_status, though the description never names those siblings to make the contrast explicit.

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 purpose statement — an agent can infer it should call this before spending points. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no reference to any alternative tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the call is free (no credits), requires no auth, and is a read-only discovery step. It stops short of describing liveness/freshness of the node list or pagination/result-size limits.

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?

Three short sentences, zero padding, with the core purpose and returned fields front-loaded before the cost/auth facts and the usage hint.

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 zero-parameter discovery tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return fields, cost, auth, and sequencing relative to hiring — everything an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 the baseline is 4. The description instead usefully characterizes the response shape (agentId, name, capability description), which is the relevant semantics here.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource: discovering currently hireable agent nodes on the Mycel network, and even pre-announces the returned fields (agentId, name, capability description). Sibling differentiation is implicit rather than explicit — '雇佣前先用本工具' routes the agent away from mycel_hire_agent, but no sibling is named directly.

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?

Gives a clear usage context: call this before hiring to see what nodes exist. Also states cost and auth preconditions (no credits consumed, no API key needed). No explicit 'when not to use' or named alternative, which keeps it below a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two important traits: the call costs points per platform rules, and the return can be either a direct result or a task_id (async completion). It does not cover failure/refund behavior or whether the deduction happens on failure.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: purpose and cost, prerequisite workflow, return shape. Front-loaded with the action and the cost warning.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers input sourcing, cost, and return shape including the task_id path. Missing only the follow-up routing to mycel_task_status when a task_id is returned.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces that agent_id comes from mycel_discover and prompt is the task description, but adds no format, length, or content guidance beyond that. Baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource — hire a Mycel agent to execute a task — and immediately flags the billing side effect (points deducted). An agent can distinguish this from mycel_discover, mycel_balance, and mycel_task_status without reading any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite ordering: call mycel_discover first to obtain agentId, then pass prompt. That names the alternative tool and the condition that gates this one. It stops short of saying when NOT to hire an agent or how it relates to mycel_task_status for follow-up.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose two useful traits: no credit consumption and no API key required. It does not state that it is a read-only operation (only implied by 查询), nor mention rate limits, pagination, or response shape.

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 compact sentence with the resource first and the cost-free/no-key qualifiers trailing. Every clause adds information; nothing is redundant.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns (model list plus credit unit prices) and its cost profile. Slight gap: no hint about the result's structure or size, which the absent output schema would otherwise have to carry.

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; baseline 4 applies. The sentence correctly signals a parameterless, fire-and-forget call.

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 (查询) and resource (LLM 模型列表与积分单价) with clear scope on the Mycel platform. It is distinguishable from siblings like mycel_balance and mycel_hire_agent by resource, though it never names an alternative 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?

Usage is implied by the resource: call this to learn which models exist and what they cost. The '不消耗积分、无需 Key' note reduces hesitation to call it, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not or routing to a sibling.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully adds that querying does not incur extra credits, which is important cost behavior, but it does not clarify read-only semantics, authorization requirements, rate limits, or error behavior.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the core action and the cost behavior without any wasted text. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter query tool.

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 simple one-parameter status query with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it identifies the returned information as status and output, and notes the no-extra-credit behavior. It could be stronger with explicit usage context, but it supplies what an agent needs to call the tool correctly.

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 only parameter, task_id, is fully described in the schema as '雇佣任务 ID', and the description merely restates that it queries by task_id. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate because the description adds little parameter-specific meaning 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?

The description states a specific verb-resource pair: querying the status and output of a hire task by task_id. It is clearly distinct from siblings such as mycel_hire_agent and mycel_balance, so an agent can identify the tool without opening the schema.

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 after a hire task exists, since it queries task status and output, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The note about no additional credit deduction gives some useful context but is not a full usage guideline.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.