Ссылка на ZIP текущей версии сайта. Ссылка живёт 15 минут и скачивается без ключа.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"slug": "<slug>"
},
"name": "vebhost_download"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the link expires after 15 minutes and downloads without a key (no auth), which is real behavioral context, but it says nothing about whether this is a safe read-only operation, how errors appear, or what happens if the link is followed after expiry.
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?
Two short sentences with no padding, and the critical expiry detail is stated plainly. The only structural weakness is that the first sentence is not a verb-led statement of action.
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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the download nature and link lifetime adequately. It remains incomplete on the input parameter and on failure behavior, which an agent needs in order to call this tool correctly.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the single required parameter 'slug' is never mentioned. The description does not explain what 'slug' identifies or how it relates to the current version, so it fails to compensate for the schema's gap.
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 names a specific resource and output: a ZIP download link for the site's current version. It is clear what the tool returns, but it is phrased as a noun phrase and never distinguishes itself from siblings such as vebhost_versions (version listing) or vebhost_read_file.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no alternative is named. The only implied scoping is 'current version', which suggests that older versions would be handled elsewhere through vebhost_versions, but the agent has to infer this.
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.