get_birthsFinds birth records
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"name": "<name>"
},
"name": "get_births"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| start | No | ||
| eventyear | No | ||
| eventplace | No | ||
| number_show | No | ||
| eventprovince | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the generic 'finds', such as pagination, result size limits, or how open-world search behaves.
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 extremely concise with no wasted words, but it is under-specified for a tool with six parameters. Brevity is achieved at the expense of informative content, making it minimally acceptable.
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 six parameters, no output schema, and no enums, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to convey return format, filtering semantics, or any operational detail, leaving the agent to guess from parameter names and annotations.
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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter meanings. It does not mention any of the six parameters, nor the required 'name' field, leaving the agent without semantic clues for correct invocation.
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 'Finds birth records' clearly states the action (finds) and the resource (birth records). It is unambiguous about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools beyond the resource type.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_records, browse_transcriptions, or get_deaths. It lacks context for selection criteria, prerequisites, 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.