Given a description of a business or operational problem, assess whether BIS is a fit and map it to the most relevant BIS capabilities, with the next step to engage.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| problem_description | Yes | The business or operational problem: what the business does, where time or money goes, data/tools, outcome wanted. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / problem_description / descriptionPrevious value: -"The operational problem: domain, decision, data, outcome."New value: +"The business or operational problem: what the business does, where time or money goes, data/tools, outcome wanted."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses the output shape (a fit verdict, capability mapping, and next-step recommendation), which compensates for the absent output schema, but says nothing about read-only nature, latency, or how the assessment is derived.
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 with the trigger front-loaded and no filler. It could be split for readability but nothing 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?
For a single-parameter, read-only analysis tool with no output schema, the description covers the input expectation and the three outputs (fit, capability mapping, next step). It is largely sufficient, with only behavioral details left implicit.
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?
With one parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents problem_description fully, including the content the agent should supply. The description restates 'a description of a business or operational problem' without adding format or scope detail 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 and resource: assess whether BIS fits a described problem and map it to relevant capabilities. This distinguishes it from siblings like compare_bis_vs_alternatives and search_bis_knowledge, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.
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 the trigger (a described business/operational problem) but never states when to prefer this over compare_bis_vs_alternatives or get_next_step, nor any exclusions. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.
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.