Metadados da conexão: escopos que a Thomson Reuters liberou para este escritório, produtos da API, base da API e as coleções disponíveis com as tools de cada uma. Chame antes de montar uma consulta, e depois de um 403 (403 quase sempre é escopo fora do contrato do escritório, não credencial errada).
| 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?
While readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations already indicate a safe read operation, the description adds practical context by explaining what the metadata includes (scopes, products, collections) and how to interpret 403 errors. This goes beyond what the annotations provide.
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 essence (connection metadata) and immediately followed by usage instructions. No filler or repetition, directly addresses purpose and invocation timing.
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?
Despite having no parameters or output schema, the description lists the key metadata components (scopes, products, base, collections) and when to use it (before query, after 403). This is complete for a metadata discovery tool.
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 describes it (no parameters). The description appropriately focuses on what the metadata contains and when to use it, adding value beyond the empty schema. Given the baseline of 4 for zero params, this is appropriate.
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 clearly states that this tool provides connection metadata: scopes, API products, base URL, and available collections with associated tools. It uses specific nouns and verbs, and it is distinct from sibling tools which perform specific operations (create/get/list/update).
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?
Explicitly tells when to call: "Chame antes de montar uma consulta, e depois de um 403" (call before building a query, and after a 403). It also explains that a 403 is usually due to missing scope, not wrong credentials, which guides troubleshooting behavior.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.