sebbi_toolCalls any sebbi.pro tool by its name with its arguments, including the ones not listed up front (see sebbi_tools). Use it when an answer's next_tools names a tool you do not see in your list. Same result as calling the tool directly.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The tool name, e.g. sebbi_banking_case | |
| arguments | No | That tool's arguments |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes beyond simple execution by disclosing a key behavioral trait: it handles arguments for the target tool, even those that are not explicitly listed or known to the dispatcher tool itself. This adds critical context to the dynamic nature of the call.
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 definition is highly efficient. It states what the tool does, how it is used, and why it is necessary within the context of the toolset in just a few succinct sentences.
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 meta-dispatcher tool, the description is complete. It successfully explains its unique role as a fallback mechanism for tool discovery and execution.
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?
Although the schema covers the fields, the description clarifies the capability of the 'arguments' parameter, stating it will handle arguments 'not listed up front.' This reinforces the dynamic nature of the tool and how parameters are actually handled in practice.
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 purpose is perfectly clear: it serves as a dynamic wrapper to call any sebbi.pro tool by name. It explicitly defines the functionality of calling a tool with its arguments.
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 tool provides explicit guidance on usage, specifically instructing the agent to use it when a tool is requested in a response's next_tools list but is otherwise unknown to the agent.
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.