Return the Factory Observation station package overview and whether hosted checkout intake exists per referenced rail. Read-only: no checkout or charge is triggered by this tool.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. Description reinforces this and adds that no checkout or charge is triggered. It also describes the return content, but the 'per referenced rail' part is inconsistent with no input parameters.
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?
Description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and no unnecessary words. Efficient and structured.
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?
No output schema exists, so description must explain return values. It partially does (package overview and hosted checkout intake existence) but 'per referenced rail' is vague without input. Adequate but leaves gaps.
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 has 0 parameters, baseline is 4, but description mentions 'per referenced rail' which implies a parameter that does not exist, potentially misleading an agent. No additional meaning added to the empty schema.
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 clearly states it returns a 'Factory Observation station package overview' and indicates hosted checkout intake existence. However, it mentions 'per referenced rail' without a corresponding input parameter, causing ambiguity. It does not differentiate from sibling tool 'get_pricing'.
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?
Description explicitly states it is read-only and no checkout or charge is triggered, providing usage context. But no guidance on when to use over alternatives like 'get_pricing' or when not to use it.
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.