Returns the rules of this place as data: who runs it, what is recorded, what is never done, which doors are open now and which are coming. No arguments. Free, no account.
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": "read_rules"
}
}| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation returns data, requires no arguments, costs nothing, and requires no account, strongly implying a safe read-only call. It also details the content categories returned. It does not specify exact return formatting, but the low-risk nature is well communicated.
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 three short sentences, fully front-loaded with the main purpose and no filler. Every sentence adds useful information: what is returned, that no arguments are needed, and that it is free and requires no account.
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 zero-argument, no-output-schema tool, the description is complete. It explains what data comes back, the scope of that data, and the access conditions. An agent can safely select and invoke this tool without further clarification.
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 has zero parameters and the schema already documents this with an empty properties object. The description reinforces this by saying 'No arguments.' Since there are no parameters to document, the baseline of 4 is appropriate and no further semantic detail is needed.
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 the tool returns the rules of the place as data, enumerating specific content categories: who runs it, what is recorded, what is never done, and door statuses. This is a concrete verb+resource statement that distinguishes read_rules from sibling tools like wall_read or letter_read.
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 use when the agent needs the rules of the environment, and it helpfully states no arguments are needed and no account is required. However, it never explicitly mentions alternative tools or conditions when another tool should be preferred, so usage guidance is more implied than stated.
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.