Chrono24's full watch-brand index: every brand name and the slug identifying it, usable as the brand param on chrono24_models and chrono24_search. This is the discovery endpoint for that param -- call it first rather than guessing a slug.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | The tool result payload (shape varies per tool; see each tool's docs resource). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safe-read nature is covered. The description adds useful workflow context (it is a discovery endpoint whose slugs feed other tools) and warns against guessing slugs, but does not describe return shape or pagination. Solid added value beyond annotations.
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 tight sentences: the first defines what the tool returns, the second states the usage rule. Front-loaded and free of filler.
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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values; it focuses on purpose and workflow. Nothing an agent needs to call a zero-param discovery tool correctly is missing.
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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly frames the tool as parameter-free discovery, though there are no parameter semantics to clarify.
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 resource (Chrono24's full watch-brand index) and precisely what it contains (every brand name and its slug). It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming chrono24_models and chrono24_search, so an agent can route correctly without opening any schema.
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 explicit guidance: 'call it first rather than guessing a slug,' and names the two downstream tools whose brand param it feeds. Both the when and the alternatives are stated directly.
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.
