Suggest scope and Scope 3 category from the bundled deterministic map. No inference is used; unknown activity types return no suggestion.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| activity | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It meaningfully reveals non-obvious traits: the tool is deterministic, uses no inference, and returns no suggestion for unknown activity types. It does not describe side effects or error behavior, but these are less critical for a classification tool with an output schema.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and free of filler. Every sentence adds value, and the unknown-handling note is a useful, compact addition.
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?
Given an output schema exists and the tool has a single parameter, the description covers the most important contextual facts: deterministic behavior, the bundled map, and unknown type handling. It does not detail the return structure, but that is already implied by the output schema. Slightly more context about the expected activity object shape would improve completeness.
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 input schema defines only a loose 'activity' object with additionalProperties and no documented fields (0% schema description coverage). The description references 'activity types' but never explains what properties the activity object must contain or the expected shape/value range, leaving the agent without enough information to construct a valid input.
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 ('suggest') and identifies the resource (scope and Scope 3 category) plus the source (bundled deterministic map). It clearly differentiates this tool from siblings like calculate_inventory and verify_result by emphasizing deterministic, non-inferential classification.
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 description gives clear context: it uses a bundled deterministic map and performs no inference, implying when this tool is appropriate. It also mentions unknown activity types return no suggestion, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct action: calculate, classify, describe, get, list, and verify. There is no overlap or ambiguity between the tools.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in lowercase snake_case, making the API predictable and easy to navigate.
The server has 6 tools, which is well-scoped for its purpose of GHG inventory calculation and verification. Each tool serves a clear role without redundancy.
The tool set covers the core workflows: calculating inventories, classifying activities, retrieving factor packs, listing available packs, and verifying results. No obvious gaps are present for the stated domain.