Evaluate response rule conditions against supplied request headers to preview which subscription response type would be returned, without applying changes.
Test SRR Matcher [READ] POST /api/system/testers/srr-matcher
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | JSON request body |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description's '[READ] POST' tag is a genuine addition because it resolves the POST-vs-read tension an agent would otherwise puzzle over. However, it says nothing about what the test returns, whether it only validates or also simulates matching, or any side effects.
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 lines with no filler, and the endpoint is front-loaded. But the brevity here reflects under-specification of a very complex tool rather than disciplined conciseness, so it does not merit a 4-5.
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 wraps a large nested rule schema and has no output schema, so the description should at minimum explain what a 'test' returns (matched rule? validation result?). Given the complexity, the two-line description leaves the agent unable to predict the outcome of invoking it.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the deeply nested body (responseRules, rules, conditions, responseType, responseModifications) is exhaustively documented with markdownDescriptions and examples. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 is essentially a restatement of the tool name ('Test SRR Matcher') plus a raw HTTP route. It never says what 'SRR' stands for or what testing a matcher actually does (evaluate response rules against request headers and report the outcome). An agent cannot distinguish this from any other tester endpoint without reading the schema.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling (e.g. get_subscription_settings, get_subscription_template) covers related territory. No preconditions, no context for the testing workflow are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.