phoenix_number_generateReturns the current temperature in Phoenix, Arizona — presented as a random number. No inputs required. The number is hot, unjustified, and arrives with arid confidence.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| number | No | Random number generated for testing or placeholder value |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation 'idempotentHint: true' implies the same input yields the same output each call, but the description explicitly says the number is random, contradicting idempotency. This is a serious inconsistency that could cause incorrect agent behavior.
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 two sentences with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and effectively communicates the tool's purpose despite the humorous tone.
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 absence of parameters and presence of annotations and output schema, the description is sufficiently complete for a simple tool. It explains the output and lack of inputs, though the contradiction reduces clarity.
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?
No parameters exist, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable since there are none. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.
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 tool returns the current temperature in Phoenix, Arizona, but then says it's presented as a random number. This introduces ambiguity but does not obscure the basic function. It distinguishes from siblings with its unique humorous tone.
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 vs alternatives. It only states 'No inputs required,' which is trivial. There is no mention of when not to use or comparisons with sibling tools.
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.