Return the view name for a specified option and reference, helping GSA COM automation scripts identify and label structural model views.
Return view name from option/ref.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | Yes | ||
| option | Yes |
| 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. 'Return' implies a read operation, but there is no disclosure of side effects, error conditions, required permissions, or what happens when the option/ref is invalid.
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 single phrase is concise and front-loaded, but it is under-specified for a tool with two undocumented required parameters. It saves space at the cost of clarity, which is not appropriate 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?
With no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate for the missing parameter semantics and behavioral context. It does not. While an output schema exists (so return values need not be described), the description is still inadequate for invoking the tool correctly.
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 0% for two required parameters. The description only repeats the parameter names ('option/ref') without defining what 'option' values are valid or what 'ref' refers to, adding no meaning beyond the schema.
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 states a verb (Return) and resource (view name) but is vague about 'option/ref' and does not differentiate from similar siblings like gsa_view_ref_from_name (which appears to be the inverse) or gsa_view_exist. An agent can infer the tool retrieves a view name, but the scope and inputs remain ambiguous.
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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of the inverse tool gsa_view_ref_from_name or any condition that selects this tool over other view-related siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.