Public FPB dashboard data with program, governance, and venue context.
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": "sdl_get_fpb_dashboard"
}
}| 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers little. The single cue is 'Public,' which weakly implies no authentication and read-only access, but there is no mention of caching, rate limits, freshness, side effects, or what the response contains. For a zero-parameter data tool this leaves the agent guessing.
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 short sentence with no filler, and the resource identifier is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized, though the unexplained 'FPB' acronym costs a little clarity.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description is the only place return values could be explained, and it only gestures at them via three vague nouns. Combined with absent annotations and no usage guidance, an agent lacks what it needs to call this confidently versus the many adjacent FPB/governance endpoints.
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 no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter-related gaps exist.
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 the resource ('FPB dashboard data') and enumerates the content axes it covers (program, governance, venue context), which is more than a bare restatement of the name. However, it carries no verb and never distinguishes itself from close siblings like sdl_get_fpb_framework or sdl_get_governance_proposals, which appear to overlap on the same subject matter. An agent cannot tell from this text which FPB tool to pick.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternative to prefer. The word 'dashboard' implies an aggregated/overview fetch as opposed to a detail endpoint, but that inference is left entirely to the reader and is never made explicit against the many sibling FPB and governance tools.
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.