go_modgo.mod content.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| version | No | ||
| module_path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | Content of the go.mod file | |
| version | Yes | The version string | |
| module_path | Yes | The module path |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "module_path": "github.com/sirupsen/logrus",
+ "version": "v1.9.3"
+ },
+ {
+ "module_path": "github.com/google/uuid"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "go.mod file content for a module version",
+ "properties": {
+ "body": {
+ "description": "Content of the go.mod file",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "module_path": {
+ "description": "The module path",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "version": {
+ "description": "The version string",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "module_path",
+ "version",
+ "body"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the brief subject, missing details like error handling, rate limits, or what happens for missing module_path.
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?
Extremely short description is not helpful conciseness; it is under-specification. No front-loading of key information. Every sentence should earn its place, but this single phrase fails to convey essential purpose.
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 has two parameters (one required), no schema description, but has an output schema, the description is wholly inadequate. It does not explain return values, prerequisites, or how the tool integrates with the domain.
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 description coverage is 0%, meaning the description does not explain parameters at all. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, leaving the agent to guess the purpose of 'version' and 'module_path'. Baseline is low due to poor coverage.
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 'go.mod content' is vague and does not specify what action the tool performs (e.g., retrieve, list, get). It hints at the subject but lacks a clear verb and resource distinction from siblings like 'module'.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling 'module' tool is related but no differentiation is provided. Agent has to infer usage from 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.