get_right_of_replyThe free, permanent, unedited reply slot every measured protocol has on its own row, its terms, the only three things that will not be published, and every reply received so far.
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions characteristics of the reply slot ('free, permanent, unedited') and a rule about unpublished items, but does not state that this is a read-only operation, what the return format is, or any side effects. Behavioral transparency is minimal.
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 a single long, run-on sentence that packs multiple ideas ('reply slot', 'terms', 'three things', 'every reply') without clear structure. It is not front-loaded with a verb and would benefit from being split into a clear, concise statement. Overly verbose for the content conveyed.
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?
The description is cryptic and context-dependent. Terms like 'measured protocol', 'its own row', and 'the only three things that will not be published' are unexplained. Without an output schema or annotations, the agent cannot understand what the tool returns or how to interpret the results. The description leaves too many open questions.
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 has zero parameters, so the schema already fully covers parameter semantics. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it does not attempt to. This matches the baseline of 4 for parameterless tools.
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 describes the content of the right of reply resource ('reply slot', 'terms', 'three things not published', 'every reply received so far') but lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'return'. It is not a tautology, but the purpose is only implied by the tool name and is vague about what the tool actually does.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_row or list_rows. It does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent is given no context to choose this tool appropriately.
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.