Provides installation and wiring instructions for RollDate Core date picker or Events calendars, including the MCP install_assets flow.
How to install and wire RollDate Core or Events (includes MCP install_assets flow).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| product | No | RollDate product. Default: core (date picker). Use events for event calendars. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.2Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / productAdded value: +{
+ "description": "RollDate product. Default: core (date picker). Use events for event calendars.",
+ "enum": [
+ "core",
+ "events"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the guide covers two products and includes the MCP install_assets flow, which is useful content scoping, but it says nothing about the return format, length, or whether it performs any action (the 'get_' prefix implies read-only but is not stated).
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 short sentence with zero filler, and the content scope is front-loaded. It is a fragment rather than a full sentence, but nothing is wasted.
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?
For a one-parameter, read-only documentation fetch with no output schema, the description conveys what topics are covered (both products, MCP install_assets flow). It stops short of describing what the returned guide looks like or how it should be applied, which matters since there is no output schema to fall back on.
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 single enum parameter already documents the default (core) and the meaning of events. The description's 'Core or Events' merely restates the enum, adding no syntax or behavioral detail 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 names the resource (install/wiring guide) and the two covered products (RollDate Core or Events), and ties itself to the MCP install_assets flow. It is clear what the tool returns, though the verb is implicit and it does not explicitly distinguish itself from doc siblings like get_snippet or get_options.
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 explicit when-to-use statement or alternative routing. The mention of the 'install_assets flow' hints at a relationship with the install_assets sibling, but an agent gets no guidance on when to call this guide versus the install_assets/install_agent_rules tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.