Save hours every week. This progress gen tool toolkit gives you a battle-tested prompt and operating playbook for restaurant/brand growth. No setup, works in any LLM chatbot.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | Optional user query to scope the analysis. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and mostly fails it. It never states whether the tool generates content, returns a static prompt/playbook, or produces a document, and there is no output schema to fill the gap; "gives you a prompt and playbook" actively suggests a template-delivery behavior that conflicts with the "gen" naming pattern used across the sibling set.
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?
It is short, but all three sentences are marketing copy ("Save hours every week," "No setup") rather than function. The front-loaded sentence spends the prime position on a benefit claim instead of stating what the tool does, so no sentence earns its place.
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?
For a one-parameter generative tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should at minimum define the artifact produced and its domain. Instead it is ambiguous about both (project-management progress vs. restaurant/brand growth) and gives an agent nothing to decide between this and its pm-progress siblings.
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 100% for the single optional `query` parameter, so the schema already explains its meaning. The description adds no guidance on how a query scopes or alters the generated progress output, leaving the baseline score appropriate.
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 restates the name loosely ("This progress gen tool toolkit") and never says what the tool actually produces — a progress report, a status update, a prompt template? It instead frames the tool as "a battle-tested prompt and operating playbook for restaurant/brand growth," which is both tautological and domain-confusing given the pm- prefix and siblings like pm-progress-check-tool and pm-progress-tpl-tool.
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 setup, works in any LLM chatbot" is a product claim, not usage guidance. There is no statement of when to call this versus pm-progress-check-tool or pm-progress-tpl-tool, no prerequisites, and no input expectations beyond the optional query parameter.
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.