get_packGet one pack by slug, with one page of its scenes (24 per page).
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"slug": "<slug>"
},
"name": "get_pack"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| slug | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: scenes are returned embedded in the response and are truncated to one page of 24, telling the agent it may need to paginate. It does not say how pagination terminates or what the last page looks like, but that is a minor gap against annotations that already carry the rest.
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 sentence with the identifier and the response scope front-loaded; every clause (slug lookup, scene inclusion, page size) earns its place. Nothing is redundant or buried.
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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the key facts an agent needs: lookup key, embedded related data, and page size. Missing only edge-case behavior for unknown slugs and a note on how to advance pages, which keeps it below 5.
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 carries the burden, and it does clarify that 'slug' identifies a single pack and that 'page' selects among 24-item pages of scenes. That is real added meaning, but it never states what the 'page' parameter is called, what happens at out-of-range values, or what a 1000-page maximum implies. Reasonable compensation, not full compensation.
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 verb and resource ('Get one pack by slug') plus the scope of what comes back ('one page of its scenes'), which is enough to distinguish it from list_packs and get_scene in practice. It does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast with one, so it stops just short of a 5.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer that this is the tool to call when it has a slug and wants the pack detail. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of list_packs for browsing or get_scene for a single scene, and no note about what to do if the slug is unknown. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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.