Explain where Duck Framework blueprints can be located. Describes the supported blueprint layouts and when each organization approach is appropriate.
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": "get_blueprint_locations"
}
}| 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, but 'Explain'/'Describes' does imply a read-only, informational result with no side effects, which is the key safety signal. It does not say what the response looks like (free text vs. structured list of paths), leaving a meaningful gap for a tool with zero structured metadata.
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 short sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded. There is mild redundancy between 'where blueprints can be located' and 'supported blueprint layouts', but nothing that wastes real space.
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 documentation lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what topic is answered but not the shape of the answer or how it relates to sibling doc tools. Adequate but with clear gaps given the crowded sibling set.
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 no parameters at all, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the schema is effectively complete. Baseline 4 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?
The description uses a clear informational verb (explain/describe) and names the resource precisely: where Duck Framework blueprints can be located, plus the supported layouts. It does not, however, distinguish this from the very similar sibling get_blueprint_structure, which an agent could easily confuse with this tool.
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 phrase 'when each organization approach is appropriate' describes the content returned, not when an agent should call this tool. There is no guidance on when to pick this over get_blueprint_structure, search_docs, or fetch_ai_guide, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.
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.