Every event PSA TicketFacts lists for one category, each with the numeric subject_id to pass to psa_ticketfacts_subject for that event's full ticket reference page. category_id is from psa_ticketfacts_categories.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| CategoryID | Yes |
| 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 safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful fact that each row carries a subject_id for follow-up calls, but says nothing about pagination, result size, or ordering. With annotations carrying the burden, a 3 is appropriate.
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 sentences, no filler, and the core scope (events for one category, each with subject_id) is front-loaded before the ID provenance note. Slightly dense phrasing 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?
An output schema exists, so return-format explanation is not required, and annotations cover the read-only/open-world profile. The description completes the picture by explaining how this tool links to its category and subject siblings, leaving only minor gaps like result size.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for the single integer parameter, and it does name the source of category_id. However, the schema key is 'CategoryID' while the description says 'category_id', a minor naming mismatch, and no format or constraint detail is offered beyond provenance.
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 states a clear resource and scope: every event TicketFacts lists for one category, each carrying a numeric subject_id. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming psa_ticketfacts_subject (the drill-down) and psa_ticketfacts_categories (the ID source), so an agent can place it in the workflow.
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?
It supplies the upstream source for category_id (psa_ticketfacts_categories) and the downstream consumer of subject_id (psa_ticketfacts_subject), which effectively tells the agent when to call this tool in the chain. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use or alternative-listing guidance, so it is strong context rather than a full routing rule.
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.
