Create a specification-first bill of materials for AI inference deployments, leaving product, price, and origin fields unpopulated until sourcing evidence confirms them.
Generate a specification-first BOM; product, price and origin fields remain unknown without evidence.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | Yes | ||
| output_format | No | json |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it states that product, price, and origin fields will remain unknown without evidence, which tells the agent the tool will not fabricate or infer those values. This complements the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations without contradicting them.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose and a key behavioral constraint with no filler. Every part 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?
The tool has an open, nested 'project' parameter, no output schema, and zero schema-level parameter descriptions, yet the description does not explain what a valid project looks like, what 'specification-first' means operationally, or what the BOM output contains beyond the mentioned unknown fields. The description is too sparse to fully equip an agent to call this tool correctly.
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%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters, but it does not clarify the shape of the 'project' object or the allowed values/behavior of 'output_format'. The mention of product, price, and origin fields hints at output semantics but does not map to the input parameters.
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 names a specific verb ('Generate'), a concrete resource ('BOM'), and a distinguishing approach ('specification-first'), so an agent can tell it apart from sibling tools like generate_hardware_spec_tool or compare_bom_options_tool. The added note about product, price, and origin fields further sharpens the purpose.
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 phrase 'specification-first' implies the tool should be used when a specification is available and a BOM is needed, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention alternatives. Usage context is only implied, not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.