Counts of pets/documents by status, what's expiring soon, recent household activity, and MCP usage stats (per-tool call counts, public-tier reach, verdict distribution).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation by describing returned data, but it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or require authentication. The disclosure is minimal but not contradictory.
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 sentence that lists all categories, making it concise. However, it could be more structured (e.g., bullet points) for improved readability.
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?
The description covers the main output categories but lacks specificity (e.g., what statuses, what 'expiring soon' means, details on verdict distribution). Given no output schema, more detail would improve completeness.
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 zero parameters, schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds value by explaining what the output contains (e.g., counts by status, usage stats). This meets the baseline of 4 for no-parameter tools.
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 clearly states that the tool returns counts of pets/documents by status, upcoming expirations, recent household activity, and MCP usage stats. This distinguishes it from sibling tools which perform specific actions like checking rules or listing items.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only lists output categories, leaving the agent to infer that it's for a high-level overview without stating conditions or exclusions.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of pet travel: rules checking, readiness validation, document listing, pet listing, dashboard overview, session prep, signup, and upcoming trips. No overlap in purpose.
All tools start with 'customs_' prefix and follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., check_rules, list_pets, start_signup), providing a predictable and clear naming convention.
8 tools cover the core workflows for pet border requirements and document management without being excessive. The scope feels well-calibrated for the domain.
The set covers key operations: rule checking, readiness, document listing, and signup. Minor gaps exist, such as no tool for adding or updating pets or documents after account creation, but core informational queries are fully covered.