Заявки с форм сайта, последние 100.
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_leads"
}
}| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal one useful trait — results are capped at the last 100 records — but says nothing about whether pagination or date filtering exists, how results are ordered, or whether site/account permissions are needed, so an agent cannot tell how complete the returned set is.
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 short sentence with no padding and the resource is front-loaded, which is good. But the brevity comes from omission rather than economy — there is no verb and no essential qualifier beyond the record count.
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?
No annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required parameter mean the description is the only source of truth, and it covers neither the input nor the response shape. For a data-retrieval tool this leaves significant gaps an agent must guess at.
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 single required parameter 'slug' has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never explains what the slug identifies (site, project, workspace?) or its format. With low coverage the description is expected to compensate, and it adds nothing here.
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 ('Заявки с форм сайта' — form submissions from the site) and a scope ('последние 100' — the last 100), so an agent knows roughly what comes back. However, it is a noun fragment with no verb, no statement of what the tool actually does (fetch/list/export), and nothing that separates it from generic siblings like vebhost_list or vebhost_get.
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 statement of prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as vebhost_list or vebhost_analytics for related data. The 100-item cap is stated as a fact but not framed as a limitation the agent must work around.
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.