my_predictions[키 필요] 대기 중인 예측과 채점 결과, 요약 성적을 본다. (My predictions.)
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": "my_predictions"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: that a key/authentication is required and what data class is returned (pending vs. graded items plus an aggregate score). The only gap is that no detail is given about data freshness or scope.
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?
Effectively one front-loaded sentence with the authentication prerequisite placed first and the returned content immediately after. Nothing is wasted, and the parenthetical English gloss aids cross-language disambiguation.
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 no parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description supplies the remaining essentials: the auth prerequisite and a summary of what is returned. It is close to complete for a simple read tool, missing only scope/volume details.
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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema is a bare object, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. Baseline for a 0-parameter tool is 4.
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?
States a specific verb+resource (view my predictions) and enumerates the content: pending predictions, scored results, and summary scores. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like league_standings or my_profile, though the description never explicitly contrasts them.
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 guidance is the '[키 필요]' (key required) prerequisite. There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives such as league_standings or overview, and no exclusion or condition for use is 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.