Contract status bound to the API key (stub until 1C/B24 wiring).
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_contract_status"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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 provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two genuinely useful traits: the result is scoped to the API key (no arguments needed) and the implementation is a stub returning unwired data until 1C/B24 integration. It says nothing about what the stub actually returns or whether the call is read-only, but the stub warning is meaningful context an agent would not otherwise have.
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?
A single compact sentence with the resource front-loaded and the caveat parenthetical at the end. It is appropriately sized for a no-arg stub, though the internal jargon ('1C/B24 wiring') is unexplained.
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 an output schema present, the return-value format need not be spelled out, and zero parameters keep the input side simple. What is missing is the surrounding context: what this contract status represents relative to sibling status tools, and it never clarifies what '1C/B24' or the 'stub' state means for the caller, leaving the agent unable to judge whether the result is trustworthy.
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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description is consistent with that by stating the status is derived from the API key, confirming no input is expected.
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 identifies the resource ('Contract status') and its scoping ('bound to the API key'), which is enough to know roughly what it returns. However, it is a noun phrase with no verb, and it does nothing to distinguish itself from the many other status/retrieval siblings such as check_its_subscription or get_cloud_trial_status. The '(stub until 1C/B24 wiring)' qualifier further muddies the stated purpose.
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 prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the ~20 sibling tools. The only implied guidance is that no parameters are needed because the status is API-key bound, which is inference rather than explicit direction.
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.