Count occurrences of each character in text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | The text to analyze |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | ||
| digits | Yes | ||
| spaces | Yes | ||
| letters | Yes | ||
| punctuation | Yes | ||
| character_counts | Yes | ||
| total_characters | Yes | ||
| unique_characters | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so description must disclose behavior. It does not mention case sensitivity, whitespace handling, or return format. Adequate for a simple tool but lacks depth.
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?
One concise sentence, no fluff. Every word adds value.
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?
Simple tool with 1 param and output schema existing. Description is sufficient but could mention output shape or edge cases.
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 100%, so baseline is 3. Description does not add meaning beyond 'text to analyze'.
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?
Description uses specific verb 'count' and resource 'occurrences of each character', clearly distinguishing from siblings like count_char (counts specific char) or count_substring.
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 explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives. The purpose is clear, but the agent must infer from context.
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.
