Retrieve reference-data scope and provenance status for offline AC cable sizing, so you can verify which standards and sources apply without exposing full tables.
Return model scope and provenance status, without reproducing reference tables.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one useful boundary behavior — it will not reproduce reference tables, implying a lightweight metadata response — which suggests a read-only, non-mutating operation. It says nothing about output shape, authorization, or caching, but for a zero-parameter informational call the risk surface is small.
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 compact sentence with no padding, and the scope of the response is front-loaded. It is slightly cryptic for its length, 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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed, and with no parameters the call surface is trivial. Still, the description leaves 'model scope' and 'provenance status' unexplained, which is the one piece of context an agent genuinely needs and cannot get from structured fields.
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 takes no parameters (0 count, 100% schema coverage), so the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing about arguments needs explaining, though the description does not note that the call is parameterless and deterministic.
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 verb 'Return' with the resource 'model scope and provenance status' states roughly what the tool does, and the clause about not reproducing reference tables hints it is a metadata tool rather than a calculator. However, 'model scope' and 'provenance status' are undefined jargon, so an agent cannot confidently predict what the payload contains relative to the calculation-oriented siblings.
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 statement of when to reach for this tool versus the six sibling calculators (check_short_circuit, size_cable, calculate_voltage_drop, etc.), nor any prerequisite or trigger condition. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.