Returns the top baby names for a given birth year (1880–2025).
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": {
"year": "<year>"
},
"name": "get_year_names"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | Yes | Birth year |
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 transparency burden. It discloses the core behavior (returning top names for a year) but does not specify the return format (e.g., list length, ordering) or other traits like authentication or rate limits. The minimal detail is insufficient for a tool with no output schema.
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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the action and resource. It contains no superfluous information and reads clearly.
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 one-parameter tool, the description covers the essential purpose, and the year range is already present in the schema. However, the lack of an output schema and any mention of sibling differentiation means it is not fully complete, though it remains adequate for the tool's simplicity.
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 input schema already fully documents the single 'year' parameter with constraints (1880–2025) and a description ('Birth year'). The tool description only reiterates the year range without adding additional meaning. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and clearly identifies the resource ('top baby names for a given birth year') with a concrete year range (1880–2025). This distinctly separates the tool from siblings like get_decade_names or compare_names.
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 implies usage for retrieving top names for a specific year but does not explicitly enumerate when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_decade_names or search_names. No exclusions or conditions are given, so guidance is only implicit.
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.