Detect and filter spam in form submissions and text content using Spamshieldpro API integration.
endpoint for checking form content
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "check_for_spam"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'checking' but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, what it returns (e.g., a score, boolean, details), error handling, or performance aspects. This leaves the agent with minimal insight into how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.
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, efficient phrase ('endpoint for checking form content') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, it could be slightly more specific (e.g., 'Check form content for spam') to improve clarity without losing conciseness.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple tool with 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It states the purpose but lacks details on behavior, return values, or usage context, making it inadequate for an agent to fully understand how to invoke and interpret results effectively.
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?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description does not add param info, but with no parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as there is no gap to compensate for, and the description does not mislead about inputs.
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 'endpoint for checking form content' states a general purpose (checking form content) but lacks specificity about what 'checking' entails (e.g., validation, spam detection, completeness). It does not distinguish from siblings as there are none, but the verb 'checking' is somewhat vague compared to more precise alternatives like 'validate' or 'scan for spam'.
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, such as prerequisites, typical scenarios, or alternatives. With no sibling tools, it avoids confusion, but it fails to specify context like 'use this before submitting forms' or 'when user input is untrusted,' leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.