Audit spreadsheet-like rows for footing, balance-sheet ties, common margins, and cell provenance.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"rows": "<rows>"
},
"name": "audit_rows"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rows | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It lists audit checks but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what side effects exist, error behavior, or performance characteristics. The lack of behavioral context is a significant 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 a single sentence, efficiently stating the purpose. No wasted words, though a slightly more structured format (e.g., listing audit types) could improve clarity without losing brevity.
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 simple input schema but lack of output schema and annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. Missing details on return values, error codes, input format constraints, and usage context leave the agent under-informed.
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%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions 'spreadsheet-like rows' but does not define the structure, required fields, or constraints of the 'rows' array. No additional meaning beyond the schema is provided.
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 specifies a clear action ('audit') on a resource ('spreadsheet-like rows') and lists specific audit items (footing, balance-sheet ties, margins, provenance). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'diff_rows' or 'verify_claim'.
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?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It only describes what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage 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.