Public FPB dashboard data. Kept for backward compatibility.
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_framework"
}
}| 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, the description carries the full behavioral burden but provides almost nothing: it does not say whether the data is cached, whether the underlying data is frozen/static given its legacy status, or what the response shape looks like. Only the vague 'public' qualifier is disclosed.
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?
Two short clauses with no filler, and the useful legacy signal is front-loaded after the resource identification. It is appropriately sized, though arguably under-specified rather than wastefully verbose.
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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least describe what the FPB framework dataset contains or why an agent would still need the legacy endpoint. It offers no such content, so an agent cannot judge whether the return is useful.
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 schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to compensate for; the baseline for a param-less tool is 4. No param semantics are missing.
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 identifies the resource as 'Public FPB dashboard data' but never expands the 'FPB' acronym or states what the returned data actually represents. The name implies a 'get' verb, yet the description doesn't distinguish this tool's output from the closely related sibling sdl_get_fpb_dashboard, beyond noting it is legacy.
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?
'Kept for backward compatibility' implicitly signals this is a deprecated surface and hints the agent should prefer a current alternative, notably sdl_get_fpb_dashboard. However, it never explicitly names that alternative or states when this tool should still be called, leaving the agent to infer.
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.