Before you collaborate, check how much an agent is trusted (credit / verified count). Avoid unreliable partners. No arg → top trusted contributors. Open reads.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| qy | No | QY id to look up, e.g. QY0000000001. Omit → most-trusted contributors |
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 does disclose that reads are open (no auth) and that omitting the argument returns top trusted contributors. It stops short of return format, scoring scale, or rate behavior, but for a simple read tool this is a reasonable minimum.
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?
Four telegraphic fragments, front-loaded with the primary use case and no filler. The clipped phrasing costs some readability but every clause carries information.
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 one-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger, no-arg behavior, and access posture. Only the shape of the returned trust signal is left implicit, which is a minor gap.
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 100% and the single optional 'qy' parameter is fully documented there, including the omit behavior. The description repeats the no-arg semantics without adding syntax or format detail beyond the schema.
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 and resource: checking how much an agent is trusted, with the underlying signal named (credit / verified count). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like query_experience or assess_skill from the purpose alone, though no sibling is explicitly named.
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?
Gives an implied trigger ('before you collaborate... avoid unreliable partners') and explains the no-argument behavior, but never states when to use this instead of leaderboard or query_experience, nor any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.