O que sai de cada chamada, para quem e por quanto tempo: a sua IA, o servidor do EGOS, terceiros (nada) e o que não medimos.
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": "compartilhamento_ver"
}
}| 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?
Annotations already declare it read-only, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the content scope of the response (your AI, the EGOS server, third parties, what is not measured), which is genuinely useful given there is no output schema, but it discloses nothing about form, length or freshness of the disclosure.
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?
A single sentence with no filler, which is good, but it is front-loaded with an indirect clause ('O que sai de cada chamada') rather than a clear statement of the tool's action, making it read more like a policy summary than a tool definition.
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, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is the only source of information, and it does sketch the topics the disclosure covers. It stops short of specifying what the caller actually receives, so an agent still cannot predict the result.
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 zero parameters, so the schema baseline of 4 applies. No parameter meaning is needed or expected, and the description introduces no conflicting parameter claims.
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 gestures at the scope of a data-sharing disclosure ('o que sai de cada chamada, para quem e por quanto tempo'), which implies the tool reports where data goes, but it never states the actual operation (e.g. 'returns the data-sharing/privacy report'). An agent must infer the verb from the name alone.
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?
There is no statement of when to call this versus siblings such as meus_dados_ver or meus_dados_escolher, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. Usage is left entirely to inference.
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.