Comentários de um item de agenda.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"id_agenda": "<id_agenda>"
},
"name": "easyjur_agenda_comentarios"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | ||
| id_agenda | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond that. It does not mention return shape, empty-result behavior, pagination, or any special handling of the 'query' parameter, so beyond annotations there is zero transparency.
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 short sentence with no filler, so it is concise. However, it is more under-specification than effective conciseness: it restates the tool name and offers no structured or useful content.
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?
With a nested 'query' parameter and no output schema, the description should clarify expected inputs and return values; it does neither. The minimal phrase may suffice for a trivial tool, but given the ambiguous query param and the large sibling set, it is not complete enough for reliable agent selection and invocation.
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 0% and the description provides no parameter explanations. The required 'id_agenda' is only inferable from the tool name, and the optional 'query' object is completely unexplained. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema-level parameter documentation.
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 'Comentários de um item de agenda' is essentially a Portuguese restatement of the tool name; it identifies the resource but lacks an explicit verb or operation (e.g., 'list', 'get', 'retrieve'). It does not meaningfully distinguish this tool from similar agenda-related siblings like easyjur_agenda_envolvidos or easyjur_agenda_etapas.
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 easyjur_get_agenda, easyjur_agenda_etapas, or easyjur_agenda_envolvidos. There are no stated preconditions, exclusions, or selection criteria.
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.