Free metadata describing the current Creator Desk completion standard. This tool does not perform verification.
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": "creator_desk_standard_info"
}
}| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that the tool returns free metadata and explicitly negates verification behavior, which indicates a read-only information lookup. It could add more detail about return format or data scope, but the core behavior is transparent enough.
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 concise sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the clarifying negation about verification is immediately useful for tool selection.
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, no-output-schema metadata tool, the description is complete. It states what the tool provides, confirms it is free metadata, and clarifies what it does not do, which is sufficient for an agent to decide whether to call it.
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 has zero parameters and the schema provides full coverage with an empty properties object, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation burden exists.
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 provides descriptive metadata about the current Creator Desk completion standard, using a specific verb ('describing') and resource. It also explicitly differentiates itself from the verification sibling by stating 'This tool does not perform verification.'
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 clearly signals that this tool is for metadata retrieval, not verification, which implies the sibling creator_desk_verify_completion should be used for verification. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling or provide a direct 'use X when Y' routing statement.
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.