Enumeră colecțiile tematice de jocuri publicate pe acest site, cu adresa paginii fiecăreia. Colecții pe teme: 1
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": "aparate"
}
}| 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 safe, closed-world read behavior is known. The description adds that page addresses are returned, but omits ordering, pagination, or response shape details.
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?
The main clause is front-loaded and efficient, but the trailing fragment 'Colecții pe teme: 1' is cryptic and does not clearly earn its place. It introduces ambiguity rather than useful structure.
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 without an output schema, the description is mostly adequate: it says collections and page addresses are returned. However, the trailing '1' is unexplained and there is no indication of whether all collections are returned or whether pagination applies.
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. There are no parameter semantics to clarify beyond the schema already being empty.
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 uses a specific verb ('Enumeră') and resource ('colecțiile tematice de jocuri'), and adds that each page address is included. It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools.
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 description states what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The implied usage is browsing thematic collections, but no explicit routing is provided.
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.