Execute a tool discovered through mcplex_find_tools by supplying its exact name and arguments that match its input schema.
Execute a tool discovered via mcplex_find_tools. Pass the exact tool name and arguments as specified in the tool's schema.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The exact name of the tool to call (from mcplex_find_tools results) | |
| arguments | No | Arguments to pass to the tool, matching its inputSchema |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and a generic dispatcher can trigger arbitrary side effects (destructive or read-only) depending on the target. The description says nothing about permissions, whether the call is reversible, rate limits, or how errors from the target tool surface. 'As specified in the tool's schema' delegates parameter shape but not behavioral risk.
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, front-loaded with the action, with zero redundant or filler text. Every clause 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 thin two-parameter dispatcher with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential flow but omits how the target tool's result is returned and what happens on failure. Adequate as a minimum, but a pass-through tool of unbounded blast radius could say more about result/error handling.
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 100%, so both 'name' and 'arguments' are already documented in structured form, including provenance ('from mcplex_find_tools results') and format ('matching its inputSchema'). The description adds no syntactic or semantic detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 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?
States a specific verb ('Execute') and resource ('a tool discovered via mcplex_find_tools'), and implicitly contrasts with the sibling it names: find_tools discovers, this one executes. An agent can distinguish it from mcplex_find_tools and mcplex_list_categories without opening any schema.
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 phrase 'discovered via mcplex_find_tools' establishes the required two-step workflow (find first, then call), which is clear usage context. It stops short of explicit when-not conditions or error-recovery guidance, so it does not reach the top band.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.