robyn_message_erasureThe last purge statement (expired count, cumulative, root of purged ids) signed by the operator. Read-only.
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": "robyn_message_erasure"
}
}| 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?
The description explicitly states "Read-only," indicating no side effects, which is a behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as potential errors, rate limits, or permissions. Given that no annotations are present, the description carries the burden, and it only partially fulfills it.
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, concise sentence that packs the essential information without superfluous words. It is well-structured and directly states the subject, making it exemplary in conciseness.
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?
The description gives some detail about the returned data (expired count, cumulative, root of purged ids, signed) but omits the exact action (e.g., "retrieve") and broader usage context. Since there is no output schema, the description must explain the return, but it does so only partially, leaving ambiguity about what the tool actually performs.
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 is empty (no parameters), and the description does not need to explain any. Since schema coverage is trivially high (no parameters to describe), the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning because there are none.
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 the tool deals with the last purge statement signed by the operator, which conveys the purpose of retrieving or providing a signed proof of erasure. However, it lacks an explicit action verb like "get" or "retrieve," making it slightly less direct than ideal.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only defines what the tool returns without contextualizing it against sibling tools or offering scenarios for its use.
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.