Get month-to-date spend, utilisation, and alert status per department
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "department_report"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | No | API key for the request | |
| department | No | Filter to a single department (optional) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what data is returned but does not explicitly confirm the operation is read-only, mention authentication requirements (despite an api_key parameter), or describe error/rate-limit behavior. The 'Get' verb implies read-only but is not explicit.
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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, conveying the essential purpose without any unnecessary words. It is concise and well-structured.
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 tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the main output content (spend, utilisation, alert status). It could be more complete by noting the read-only nature or authentication, but for this complexity level, it is reasonably comprehensive.
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 schema covers 100% of the parameters with clear descriptions (api_key and department), so the baseline is 3. The description's 'per department' aligns with the department filter but adds no new semantic information beyond what the schema already provides.
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 the specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as a department report with month-to-date spend, utilisation, and alert status. It is unambiguous but does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like weekly_report.
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 alternatives such as weekly_report or get_budget_alerts. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision context.
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.