View the read-only register of every Article 4 measure, with counts by audience and by measure.
Every Art. 4 measure recorded, with counts by audience and by measure. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Read-only' discloses the side-effect profile, and 'Every Art. 4 measure recorded, with counts by audience and by measure' states the scope and aggregation behavior. However, it does not explain what an 'Art. 4 measure' is, what dimensions 'audience' and 'measure' refer to, or whether the counts are live or snapshotted.
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?
Two short sentences deliver the core content ('Every Art. 4 measure recorded, with counts...') and the safety signal ('Read-only') with zero filler. The main point is front-loaded and every word 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?
For a simple zero-parameter tool, the description covers the basic return shape (counts by audience and by measure) but is thin on semantics: what counts as an Art. 4 measure, what the audience breakdowns are, and the exact response structure are unspecified. Since there is no output schema, the description should carry more of that explanatory weight.
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 zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain. Per baseline for 0-parameter tools, a 4 is appropriate; the description's output details are enough for a parameterless call.
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 identifies a specific resource (the Art. 4 literacy register) and states its content: every recorded measure with counts by audience and measure. The verb is implied rather than explicit (it does not say 'list' or 'get'), and it does not differentiate from siblings like record_literacy or attestation_register, but the resource and aggregation detail are clear enough for an agent to understand what the tool returns.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus any of the many siblings (e.g., record_literacy, attestation_register, notice_register). The only hint is 'Read-only,' which implies it is safe for inspection, but there are no stated conditions, exclusions, or alternative recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.