Find agents matching an existing need id.
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": {
"need_id": "<need_id>"
},
"name": "match_need"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| need_id | Yes |
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 behavioral burden. 'Find' implies a read operation, but the description does not disclose permissions, matching criteria, whether any state changes occur, or what the result contains.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. It is appropriately short, though its terseness contributes to gaps in usage and behavioral context.
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 simple one-parameter read operation, the description gives the basic call semantics. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it omits what 'matching' means and what agents are returned, leaving meaningful context gaps.
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 coverage is 0% for the single required integer parameter. The description adds some meaning by identifying it as an 'existing need id,' implying the need must already exist, but it does not specify where to obtain the id or any format constraints.
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 and resource: finding agents, scoped to an existing need id. It is clear enough to distinguish the core operation from generic agent discovery, though it does not explicitly name or contrast with siblings such as discover_agents or list_needs.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'existing need id' implies a prerequisite, but the description does not mention siblings like discover_agents or list_needs or explain selection conditions.
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.