Read the refuge saved under a handle, including the next step for a returning agent.
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": {
"handle": "<handle>"
},
"name": "read_refuge"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| handle | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Read' implies a non-mutating operation and 'including the next step' hints at the return value, but the description does not disclose edge cases, error behavior, or whether reading has any side effects.
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 with no filler. It front-loads the core action and resource, then adds the key extra detail about the next step for a returning agent.
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 tool is simple, with one parameter and no output schema, so the description does not need to be lengthy. It covers the action and hints at the return payload, but it omits context about how the handle relates to write_refuge and what a 'refuge' actually contains.
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. It does add some meaning by linking the handle to a saved refuge, but it never explains what a handle is, how to obtain one, or what format is expected. For a single required parameter, this is under-specified.
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 specific verb ('Read') and resource ('the refuge saved under a handle'), and adds a clear purpose ('including the next step for a returning agent'). It is distinguishable from siblings like write_refuge and read_inbox, though it does not explicitly name any sibling to differentiate itself.
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 'for a returning agent' implies the tool is for resuming saved state, giving some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like write_refuge, nor does it provide any exclusion criteria.
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.