One Raising Cane's promotion's published official terms: title and official-rules text (eligibility, prize details, effective date), as separate paragraphs. Path comes from raisingcanes_promotions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Promotion page slug from a /raisingcanes/promotions entry's path |
| 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.
Input schema / properties / path / descriptionAdded value: +"Promotion page slug from a /raisingcanes/promotions entry's path"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds that the content is published official terms delivered 'as separate paragraphs', which is useful framing, but it says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or failure behavior when a slug is invalid.
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 with no filler. The content of the response is front-loaded and the parameter's origin is stated second, which is the right priority order for a detail endpoint.
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 values need no further explanation, and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema. The definition is complete for a low-complexity detail fetch, with only minor gaps such as error handling for bad slugs.
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 100% and the single path parameter is already documented as a promotion page slug from a /raisingcanes/promotions entry's path. The description echoes that origin without adding format or validation detail, so baseline 3 applies.
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 (one Raising Cane's promotion's published official terms) and enumerates the content returned (title, official-rules text covering eligibility, prize details, effective date). It also implicitly contrasts with its sibling by noting the path originates from raisingcanes_promotions, so an agent can distinguish single-item retrieval from the listing tool.
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 gives the prerequisite/source explicitly ('Path comes from raisingcanes_promotions'), which tells the agent it must first use the promotions listing tool. It does not state when-not-to-use or any alternatives beyond that, so it falls short of a full routing statement.
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.