Read a public Sentinel objective and public instructions. Never private instructions.
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": {
"id": "<id>"
},
"name": "get_sentinel"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add a genuine access-scope guarantee, that only public and never private instructions are returned, but says nothing about behavior when the id is invalid, missing, or points at a private objective.
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, and the access-scope constraint is front-loaded. Slightly clipped phrasing ('public Sentinel objective and public instructions') repeats 'public' where one qualifier would suffice.
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 one-parameter read tool with full safety annotations and no output schema, the definition covers purpose and access scope adequately. Remaining gaps (id provenance, not-found behavior) are minor for a tool this simple.
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?
Single required 'id' parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden. The noun 'Sentinel' lets an agent infer the id identifies a Sentinel objective, but nothing is said about format, length, or where to obtain a valid id.
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 and resource: read a Sentinel objective plus its public instructions. The word 'public' scopes the content clearly and implicitly separates it from listing siblings like list_sentinels, though no sibling is named.
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?
Provides one hard exclusion ('Never private instructions'), which tells the agent this tool will not surface private content. It gives no positive when-to-use framing, no pointer to list_sentinels for discovery, and no guidance on what to do if the id is unknown.
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.