describe_gateReturn one Gate Network gate definition. Read-only.
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": {
"gateId": "<gateId>"
},
"name": "describe_gate"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| gateId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only' which conveys non-destructive behavior, but gives no information about error handling, auth, or output details beyond 'definition'.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. No filler or redundancy.
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?
Adequate for a simple single-parameter read operation, but lacks guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools and omits behavior for invalid/missing IDs.
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?
The single parameter gateId is not described in the schema. The description implies it identifies the gate to return, but adds no format, example, or further meaning beyond the obvious.
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?
Clear verb ('Return') and resource ('one Gate Network gate definition') make the tool's purpose obvious. It implies a singular lookup, distinguishing it from list/search at a basic level, but does not explicitly reference sibling tools.
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 over siblings (list_gates, search_gates, get_preflight). The description states what it does but provides no context for when it should be chosen.
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.