get_discoveryList what this account can call: Saina models and connected providers with their models. Each section only shows what the connection may read.
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_discovery"
}
}| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing that results are permission-scoped ("only shows what the connection may read"), but says nothing about result shape, size, or ordering.
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 filler; the scope of the listing is front-loaded and the permission caveat follows it. Every clause earns its place.
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-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers what the caller gets (models, providers and their models, sectioned, permission-filtered). A little more on the response structure would make it fully self-sufficient, but nothing essential is missing.
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 of 4 applies. There are no argument semantics to explain, and the description correctly focuses on output content instead.
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?
States a specific verb ("List") and a specific resource (Saina models and connected providers with their models), which is far more concrete than the title's generic "Get discovery". It does not explicitly name the sibling 'search' as a contrasting alternative, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
Usage is implied — call this to see what models/providers the account can reach — but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to 'search' as the alternative for actual querying. The agent must infer the discovery-vs-search split.
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.