Keeta's published anchor providers and what their metadata says they connect. Not a quote. Free.
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_providers"
}
}| 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 cover read-only and open-world behavior, so the bar is lower; the description still adds two genuinely new behavioral facts: the data is descriptive metadata rather than a binding quote, and it costs nothing. It does not describe result shape or pagination, but the added-value contribution is real.
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?
Extremely short and front-loaded with zero filler. The telegraphic fragments ('Not a quote. Free.') trade some precision for density, which slightly weakens clarity of the second sentence.
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?
With no output schema, the description must carry the return-value burden, and it only hints at it ('what their metadata says they connect'). For a zero-param read tool this is close to sufficient, but an agent still cannot predict the shape of a provider record.
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?
Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies a no-argument, whole-set listing.
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?
Names a specific resource (Keeta's published anchor providers) and the payload characteristic (their metadata's claimed connections). Distinguishes itself from quote-oriented siblings via 'Not a quote,' though the phrase 'what their metadata says they connect' is somewhat elliptical about the exact return content.
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?
'Not a quote. Free.' implicitly steers the agent away from quote_anchors/quote_* when pricing isn't wanted, but it never states a positive when-to-use condition or names the alternative tool explicitly. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.
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.