通过 catalog-team: 球队 ID 查询其档案中的球场、城市、容量。空字段表示资料缺失。
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": {
"team_id": "<team_id>"
},
"name": "get_venue"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| team_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add one genuinely useful behavioral note – that empty fields mean missing data rather than an error – but says nothing about what happens with an unknown team_id or an unexplained 'catalog-team' source prefix.
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, front-loaded with the lookup key and result fields, with no filler. The opaque 'catalog-team:' prefix costs a little clarity but not length.
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 simple single-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the definition covers the essentials and even explains empty-field semantics. It stops short on not-found behavior and whether more than one venue can be returned.
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% for the single required parameter, so the description must compensate. It identifies team_id as a team identifier and implies the lookup targets the 'catalog-team' source, but adds no format, example, or validity constraints beyond what the parameter name already suggests.
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 names a specific lookup verb and resource: by team ID, retrieve the venue/stadium, city, and capacity from a team's profile. That is concrete enough to distinguish it from siblings like get_team_profile or get_team_squad, though it never explicitly says how it differs from the broader profile 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?
Usage is only implied: the reader infers this is the tool for venue-related fields when a team ID is known. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the sibling tools.
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.