Retrieve a single script by hash.
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": {
"script_hash": "<script_hash>"
},
"name": "get_script"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| script_hash | Yes |
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Retrieve' implies a read-only lookup, but it says nothing about what happens when the hash is unknown, whether results are cached, or any auth constraints.
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 efficient sentence with the resource and lookup key front-loaded. There is no waste, though it is arguably too terse for a tool with zero annotation and parameter coverage.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and a one-parameter read tool is simple. Still, with no annotations and no parameter documentation, the missing behavior (failed lookup, auth) leaves a modest gap.
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% for the single parameter, so the description must compensate. 'By hash' clarifies that script_hash is the lookup key, but adds essentially nothing about format, length, or validity beyond the parameter name itself.
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?
States a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('script') with scope 'single', which implicitly distinguishes it from list_scripts and generate_script. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the singular framing is enough to route most agents.
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 indication of when to use this over list_scripts or generate_script, and no mention of preconditions such as having a valid hash on hand. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
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.