Ludus FastMCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'gets' configuration, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify permissions needed, whether it returns partial or full configuration, error conditions, or response format. The mention of 'Returns: Scenario configuration' is vague and doesn't explain what that entails. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 description is concise with a brief purpose statement and parameter/return sections, but it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The structure is clear with labeled sections, yet the content within each section lacks depth. While not verbose, it fails to provide necessary details, making it more of a skeleton than a complete description.

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?

Given the complexity implied by sibling tools (e.g., configuration retrieval in a multi-tool environment), no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. Although an output schema exists (which might detail the return structure), the description doesn't explain key aspects like tool differentiation, parameter usage, or behavioral expectations. For a tool in this context, more comprehensive guidance is needed.

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 0%, meaning neither parameter has descriptions in the schema. The description lists parameters ('scenario_key: Scenario identifier', 'siem_type: SIEM type to include') but provides only basic labels without explaining what valid values are, how 'scenario_key' relates to other tools, or what 'SIEM type' options exist (e.g., beyond the default 'wazuh'). This adds minimal semantics beyond the bare schema, insufficient to compensate for the 0% coverage.

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 'Get scenario configuration' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name 'get_scenario_config'. While it indicates a retrieval action on scenario configuration, it lacks specificity about what 'scenario configuration' entails or how it differs from sibling tools like 'get_range_config', 'get_scenario_yaml', or 'get_current_range_config_for_download'. This minimal phrasing doesn't provide meaningful differentiation from related 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools that retrieve configuration-related data (e.g., 'get_range_config', 'get_scenario_yaml'), there's no indication of what makes this tool unique or when it should be preferred. The absence of any context or prerequisites leaves the agent without usage direction.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.