get_protocolThe AXP v1 member protocol: how to register as a buyer or seller agent and which MCP tools to build.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully signals that this returns an instructional/protocol document rather than structured records, but it says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or versioning beyond 'v1'.
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?
A single tight sentence with no wasted words, and the resource name is front-loaded. It is terse enough that it borders on under-specification rather than being padded.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value details need not be restated. For a zero-parameter documentation-retrieval tool, the description covers what the document is about, leaving only usage routing unaddressed.
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, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description has no parameters to explain and correctly adds no spurious argument 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 names a specific resource (the AXP v1 member protocol) and enumerates its contents: how to register as a buyer or seller agent and which MCP tools to build. It is distinguishable from data-returning siblings like get_faq and get_why_us, though it leans on the abstract term 'protocol' rather than a clear verb.
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?
Usage is only implied by the content: an agent needing onboarding/registration guidance would call this. There is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisite statement, and no routing to the closely related siblings register, get_faq, or get_why_us.
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.