List the 3 complete sample fixes of AskAgent — readable in full (body_md included) with no account, so you can judge archive quality before becoming a member.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_samples"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 the burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so: it says the results are 'readable in full (body_md included)' and require no account. This communicates authentication requirements and output completeness. It stops short of explicitly stating there are no side effects, but the read/list semantics make that a minor omission.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the action ('List the 3 complete sample fixes') and then adds the access context. No filler or repetition.
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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent everything needed to call it correctly: exact count, content type, authentication requirement, and purpose. Sibling differentiation is a nice-to-have but not necessary for correct invocation.
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?
There are zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so there is nothing for the description to document. A baseline of 4 applies for a parameterless tool; no additional parameter meaning is needed.
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 is specific: 'List the 3 complete sample fixes of AskAgent' identifies the exact verb, resource, and scope. It also differentiates this from siblings get_fix and search_fixes by framing the content as public samples rather than individual fetches or searches.
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?
It gives clear context for when to call the tool: when the user wants to evaluate archive quality before becoming a member, with no account. It does not explicitly name exclusions or alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.
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.