Spine 渲染服务定价与限制卡片（免费调用）。
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": "spine_render_pricing"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one genuinely behavioral fact — that calls are free of charge, implying no billing or quota cost — but says nothing about read-only nature, rate limits, authentication, or whether the pricing data is static or reflects live account usage.
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 short clause with no filler or repetition. It is arguably over-terse for an agent that needs to know the response shape, but nothing in it is wasted.
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?
The tool is trivial (zero params, output schema present, so return values need not be explained), which lowers the bar considerably. Still, the description never states that it takes no arguments or clarifies static reference data versus live quota, leaving a small but real gap for a pricing-information tool.
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 and the empty schema makes that unambiguous, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. Nothing is missing on this dimension.
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 — the Spine rendering service's pricing and limits card — which is enough to tell it apart from spine_render_frame and spine_render_animate. However it is a bare noun phrase with no verb, so the agent must infer that the tool 'returns' this informational card rather than performing an action.
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 parenthetical '(free to call)' hints that cost is not a barrier, which is a weak signal for when to invoke it, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion, and no reference to the sibling render or describe tools.
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.