List integration scenarios for RollDate Core date pickers or Events event calendars, so AI agents can pick the right setup for a project.
List integration scenarios for RollDate Core or RollDate Events.
| 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"
+}v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description never states that, nor does it mention return format, pagination, or whether an auth/product context is required.
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 tight sentence with no filler, and the resource is front-loaded after the verb. Nothing is padded, though there is also very little content to structure.
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 is simple (one optional enum param, no output schema), so a short description is defensible. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves the nature of an 'integration scenario' and the expected return undefined, which is more than an agent should have to guess.
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%: the single 'product' enum parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the default and the meaning of 'events'. The description merely echoes the two product values, adding no semantics 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?
States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('integration scenarios') scoped to RollDate Core or RollDate Events. It is clear what the tool returns at a high level, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings like get_options or get_methods.
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 gives no indication of when to reach for this tool versus list_products, get_options, or get_methods. There are no exclusions, no prerequisites, and no routing guidance; the agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.