housesSearch/list houses.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| words | No | ||
| region | No | ||
| hasSeats | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| hasTitles | No | ||
| hasDiedOut | No | ||
| hasAncestralWeapons | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "name": "House Stark"
+ },
+ {
+ "hasDiedOut": false,
+ "hasTitles": true,
+ "region": "The North",
+ "words": "Winter is Coming"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "List of houses from A Song of Ice and Fire",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so safety is covered. However, the description itself adds no behavioral context beyond saying 'Search/list houses'—no mention of pagination, result shape, or filtering behavior, which is a gap.
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 extremely short, but it is under-specified for a tool with 9 parameters and no parameter documentation. It is not appropriately sized because it omits essential detail, making it concise at the expense of usefulness.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (9 optional parameters, existing output schema, and sibling tools), the description is wholly inadequate. It does not explain search criteria, pagination, default behavior, or how this tool relates to singular 'house' or other entity tools, so the agent cannot use it correctly.
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?
With 9 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain what each parameter means and how they combine, but it provides nothing. The schema only lists types, so the agent has no semantic understanding of 'name', 'words', 'region', or the boolean flags.
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 the action (search/list) and resource (houses). It is understandable but does not differentiate this tool from the singular 'house' sibling tool or other list tools, so it lacks sibling differentiation.
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 the singular 'house' tool or other entity list tools. It does not mention any use cases, filters, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision context.
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.