waiverfile_list_waiver_formsList the waiver forms of the site (name, id, which fields they collect: email, address, phone, date of birth, minimum age, signature). Active forms by default; set include_deleted for all forms including deleted ones. Use the form ids when creating or updating events. GET /GetActiveWaiverForms or /GetAllWaiverForms.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include_deleted | No | Also return deleted forms (default false). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the read-only, non-destructive, open-world profile, so the description need not restate safety. It adds genuine behavioral context by disclosing the default filter (active only) and naming the underlying endpoints (GET /GetActiveWaiverForms vs /GetAllWaiverForms) that back the two modes. It stops short of describing result ordering or any pagination/limits.
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?
Three dense sentences, front-loaded with what is listed and its fields, then the mode switch, then the downstream use of ids. Nothing is redundant with the annotations.
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?
With a single optional parameter and no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden itself by enumerating the fields returned. It also covers the default mode and the practical follow-up (use ids for events), leaving nothing essential to guess.
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?
There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description mirrors the schema's meaning for include_deleted without adding syntax or edge-case detail.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ("List the waiver forms of the site") and enumerates the returned fields (name, id, collected fields such as email, address, DOB, signature), which sharpens the meaning. It never explicitly distinguishes 'waiver forms' (templates) from the sibling waiver-submission tools like waiverfile_list_waivers, leaving a possible naming confusion to be inferred.
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?
It states the operating mode clearly: active forms are returned by default and include_deleted switches to all forms including deleted ones. It also tells the agent what to do with the result: "Use the form ids when creating or updating events." No explicit exclusions against sibling list tools are given.
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.