Vymenuje všetky dostupné fakty (id, title, value), voliteľne filtrované krajinou.
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": "list_facts"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| country | No | Voliteľný filter krajiny (napr. SK) |
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 full burden. It discloses the returned fields (id, title, value) and optional filter, but does not mention read-only behavior explicitly (though listing implies it), error cases, or any side effects. This is adequate for a simple list tool but lacks deeper behavioral context.
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 conveys the essential purpose and parameters without waste. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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 read-only list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It specifies what is returned and the optional filter. However, it could improve by noting how it differs from siblings or any limitations (e.g., no pagination details), but these are not critical for this low-complexity 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?
Schema coverage is 100% (one optional 'country' parameter with a description). The tool description repeats 'voliteľne filtrované krajinou' but adds no new semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies because the schema already documents the parameter adequately.
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 a specific verb ('Vymenuje' = lists) and resource ('všetky dostupné fakty' = all available facts) with optional country filtering. It distinguishes from 'lookup_fact' (single fact vs all facts) and 'search' implicitly, but does not explicitly name alternatives or contrasts.
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 (use when you want to list facts, optionally filtered by country) but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools like 'lookup_fact', 'search', or 'compare'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
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.