metadataRelease / source metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| src | No | Source database metadata | |
| version | No | API version | |
| timestamp | No | Metadata timestamp |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {}
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "src": {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "description": "Source database metadata",
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "timestamp": {
+ "description": "Metadata timestamp",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "version": {
+ "description": "API version",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish that the tool is read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds only that it involves 'release / source metadata,' leaving ambiguous what action is performed or what output is expected. This is minimal additional 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 extremely short, but this comes across as under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It fails to provide even a verb or a complete sentence to explain the tool's 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?
With zero parameters and an output schema present, the tool is not complex, but the description still needs to state what the tool actually does. 'Release / source metadata' is too vague to be considered a complete explanation.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete and there is nothing to document. Per rubric, 0 params sets a baseline of 4, even though the description itself adds no parameter-related value.
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 reads as a fragment, merely stating 'Release / source metadata' without a verb or clear action. It essentially restates the title 'Metadata' and does not distinguish the tool from siblings like 'discover_tools' or 'taxonomy.'
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 any of its many siblings. The description gives no context about appropriate scenarios or alternatives, offering no help with tool selection.
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.