Read the live PriorSeal deployment capabilities before constructing a workflow.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | ||
| risk | Yes | ||
| tool | Yes | ||
| schema | Yes | ||
| status | Yes | ||
| nextAction | Yes | ||
| requiresHumanSignature | Yes | ||
| mayBroadcastTransaction | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "data": {},
+ "mayBroadcastTransaction": {
+ "const": false
+ },
+ "nextAction": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "requiresHumanSignature": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "risk": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "level": {
+ "enum": [
+ "read_only",
+ "human_signature_required",
+ "service_state_change",
+ "verification_only",
+ "input_or_service_error"
+ ]
+ },
+ "reasonCode": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "level",
+ "reasonCode"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "schema": {
+ "const": "priorseal.mcp.tool-result.v1"
+ },
+ "status": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "tool": {
+ "const": "priorseal_get_capabilities"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "schema",
+ "tool",
+ "status",
+ "nextAction",
+ "requiresHumanSignature",
+ "mayBroadcastTransaction",
+ "risk",
+ "data"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only the word "live", hinting that capabilities are dynamic rather than static configuration; that is a small but real addition beyond the annotations, not enough to warrant a 4.
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 front-loaded sentence with the action first and the precondition second. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.
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?
Zero parameters, an output schema that documents the return shape, and annotations that carry the safety profile. The description supplies the one thing structured data cannot: that this read should precede workflow construction. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is absent.
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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. No parameter-related meaning is missing.
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?
States a specific verb (Read) and resource (live PriorSeal deployment capabilities), which is a distinct resource not covered by any sibling such as priorseal_get_authorization or priorseal_get_receipt. It does not explicitly contrast itself against those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
"before constructing a workflow" gives a concrete sequencing condition for when to call this tool, which is genuinely useful context for an agent planning a multi-step flow. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.
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.