Protocol AO-045 (AO-E128): Inspects live controlled env.AI multi-model Cross-Family Schelling convergence and multi-hop caveat half-life telemetry.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_controlled_panel_atlas"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. "Inspects" weakly implies a read-only operation, but the description never states whether anything is mutated, whether auth or a protocol flag is required, or how expensive/live the call is despite advertising "live" data. The behavioral profile is essentially unknown.
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?
It is a single front-loaded sentence with the protocol identifier leading, which is structurally sound and wastes no words. However, the density of undefined compound jargon means brevity comes at the cost of intelligibility rather than through efficiency.
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?
With zero parameters and no output schema, the description is the only source of information about what comes back, and it never says what the returned atlas or telemetry looks like or what an agent would do with it. For a no-parameter, no-output-schema tool, this leaves a critical gap.
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?
The tool takes no parameters (empty object schema at 100% coverage), so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the description does not mislead about inputs.
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 verb "Inspects" is specific and the protocol tag (AO-045 / AO-E128) does tie the tool to a named protocol family, which helps distinguish it from siblings like get_ao053_graduation_summary. But the object of the verb is an impenetrable string of jargon ("live controlled env.AI multi-model Cross-Family Schelling convergence and multi-hop caveat half-life telemetry") that gives no concrete picture of what is being retrieved. An agent cannot say in plain terms what this tool produces.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, no mention of alternatives, and no statement of what this tool is for relative to any other. Nothing indicates when an agent should pick this over get_ao053_graduation_summary or inspect_model_catalog_etl.
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.