Fetch the user's signed missions and their intent, budget, remaining budget, allowed/forbidden categories, and expiry, so purchases remain within approved limits.
Missions the user has signed: intent, budget, remaining budget, allowed and forbidden categories, expiry. You can only buy inside one of these.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With only readOnlyHint=true declared, the description adds real value by disclosing the shape of the response: intent, budget, remaining budget, allowed and forbidden categories, expiry. It does not mention whether multiple missions can be returned or how 'signed' is determined, but the field inventory is substantive behavioral context beyond the annotation.
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 with no waste. The resource and its scope are front-loaded, and the second sentence carries a distinct, load-bearing constraint rather than padding.
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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers resource, scope, and returned fields sufficiently. It could note whether results are a single mission or a collection and how empty results are represented, but nothing essential for invocation is missing.
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 schema takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document and no coverage gap to compensate for. Baseline 4 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 identifies the resource (missions the user has signed) and enumerates the fields returned, so an agent knows this is a read of the caller's spending mandates. The verb is implicit rather than stated, and it does not distinguish itself from the nearby get_policy sibling, which is a plausible source of confusion.
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?
'You can only buy inside one of these' establishes that a mission is a prerequisite for purchasing, which is genuine contextual guidance. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use direction relative to alternatives (e.g., get_policy vs this list), leaving the trigger condition implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.