Return Package 1-backed A2A/MCP evidence with freshness, provenance, and compatibility. Authentication is optional and enables durable personalized delta.
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": "get_live_utility"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| context | No | ||
| subject | No |
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 full burden. It usefully discloses that authentication is optional and affects personalization durability, but it omits read-only confirmation, return format, pagination, rate limits, error behavior, and what 'Package 1-backed' entails, leaving significant behavioral gaps.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by an auth note. It is appropriately sized, though the jargon slightly reduces clarity rather than adding waste.
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?
This is a tool with a nested object parameter, zero schema description coverage, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is far too sparse to guide correct invocation, as it never explains the context object's fields, the subject enum, or what evidence is returned.
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%, and the description does not explain the subject enum or any of the seven nested context properties (auth_modes, constraints, permissions, capabilities, payment_methods, supported_protocols, supported_protocol_versions). 'A2A/MCP' and 'Authentication' hint at some fields but provide no explicit mapping or meaning.
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 states a specific verb ('Return') and a resource ('A2A/MCP evidence') with attributes 'freshness, provenance, and compatibility.' However, 'Package 1-backed' and 'live utility' are undefined jargon, making it difficult for an agent to understand exactly what is returned or how it differs from siblings like get_package5_proof or verify_external_callability.
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 only usage guidance is that authentication is optional and enables durable personalized delta. There is no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no prerequisites beyond the auth note.
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.