Get one existing KentekenKompas Direct Answer by stable answerId without generating new text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| answerId | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | ||
| sources | Yes | ||
| coverage | No | ||
| evidence | Yes | ||
| freshness | Yes | ||
| citationUrl | No | ||
| limitations | Yes | ||
| schemaVersion | Yes | ||
| knowledgeVersion | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that it returns an existing answer and never triggers new text generation, which is a useful behavioral nuance beyond the raw hints. It does not address error cases or the semantics of 'stable', so it adds only limited additional transparency.
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?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the main action (Get), names the resource, and adds the critical qualifier 'without generating new text.' There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.
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?
The tool is a simple get-by-id operation with one parameter, a rich annotation set, and an output schema. The description covers the retrieval semantics and non-generation behavior, which is enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool. Minor omissions like not-found behavior or the source of answerId do not undermine completeness given the schema and annotations.
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?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries the full burden of explaining the single parameter. It identifies answerId as the stable retrieval key for an existing Direct Answer, giving semantic meaning that the schema's pattern alone lacks. While it could also explain where answerId comes from, the provided meaning is sufficient for a one-parameter tool.
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 uses a specific verb (Get), a concrete resource (KentekenKompas Direct Answer), and the retrieval key (stable answerId). It also clarifies the operation does not generate new text, which implicitly separates it from generation and search tools. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it stops short of a perfect 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?
The description implies the appropriate use case: when an agent already has a stable answerId and needs the existing Direct Answer, without generating new text. It provides a clear prerequisite (stable answerId) and a when-not (no text generation), but it does not name alternative tools like search_vehicle_knowledge or get_source_context. This is clear context with no explicit alternatives/exclusions beyond the no-generation caveat.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.