Show an overview of all available Palim tools and usage instructions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | No | Filter by category. Default: all. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | Yes | Human-readable tool result text. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {
+ "message": {
+ "description": "Human-readable tool result text.",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "message"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only that the payload is a tool overview plus usage instructions, which is modest supplementary context with no rate limits, auth needs, or side effects to disclose.
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 and the returned content, no filler or redundancy.
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?
An output schema exists and annotations cover the behavioral profile, so the description need not explain return values or safety. For a zero-required-parameter help tool it is essentially complete, with only the category-filtering affordance left solely to the schema.
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 100% and the single category parameter is documented in the schema itself, including its enum values and default. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 states a concrete verb ("Show") and resource ("overview of all available Palim tools and usage instructions"), which is unmistakably distinct from data-oriented siblings like palim_search or palim_add_memory. It is clear, though it does not explicitly name siblings to route against.
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: an agent can infer this is the discovery/onboarding call, and the category enum hints at scoped lookups. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of alternatives.
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.