entity_definitionSingle definition by type + hash.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | Yes | ||
| hash_identifier | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "hash_identifier": "1274492908",
+ "type": "DestinyInventoryItemDefinition"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "Single definition by type and hash response",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds value by clarifying the operation scope, but no extra behavioral context is required.
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 concise (5 words) and front-loaded, but it sacrifices informativeness. It could be expanded slightly while remaining concise.
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 presence of an output schema and rich annotations, the description is borderline adequate for a lookup tool. However, it lacks context about what a 'definition' is and how the hash is used, leaving some ambiguity.
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 0% and the description only mentions 'type + hash' without explaining their meaning or format beyond the example. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions for two non-obvious parameters.
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 'Single definition by type + hash.' clearly states the action (get a single definition) and the resources (type and hash). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'compare_entities' and 'entity_profile' by implying unique retrieval.
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 explicit guidance on when to use or alternatives. The description implies usage for fetching one definition, but lacks when-not or comparison with siblings like 'resolve_entity' or 'search_within'.
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.