get_pipeline_schemaMachine contract for building pipelines: valid block types, per-block config schema, and chaining rules accepted by create_pipeline.
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_pipeline_schema"
}
}| 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, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the payload is a static contract rather than live data, but says nothing about format (JSON Schema?), size, versioning, or caching behavior.
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 front-loaded sentence that defines the artifact and its three components with no filler. 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?
With no parameters and no output schema, the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does so by naming the three sections of the contract. It is slightly thin on payload format and on how an agent should use the chaining rules, but it is adequate for a zero-arg schema fetch.
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. The description correctly indicates the tool is a no-argument reference lookup, leaving no parameter semantics to explain.
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 resource and enumerates exactly what the returned contract contains (valid block types, per-block config schema, chaining rules). Naming create_pipeline as the consumer cleanly separates this reference tool from its write-side sibling.
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?
'accepted by create_pipeline' implies this is the lookup to perform before building a pipeline, which is useful routing context. However, it never states explicitly when to call it, that it takes no arguments, or that it should be consulted before create_pipeline rather than after a validation failure.
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.