Retrieve the app's current language setting to localize output or configure language-dependent behavior.
Language of the app.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "bitpull_language"
}
}| 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?
The readOnlyHint=true annotation already tells the agent this is a non-mutating read, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that: no mention that it returns the currently configured language, no defaults, no fallback behavior when no language is set.
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?
Four words with no waste, but the brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency — the single sentence carries no actionable content and has no front-loaded verb to orient the agent.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description is the only place that could explain what the call yields (e.g., the current language code or locale string). It does not, leaving the return value and the relationship to bitpull_set_language completely undocumented.
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 zero parameters and the schema is empty with 100% coverage, so there is no parameter meaning to convey; the baseline for a no-param tool applies. Nothing in the description misrepresents or muddies the (absent) arguments.
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 text "Language of the app." is a noun phrase that restates the tool name rather than stating a verb and resource. It never says whether it reads, returns, or sets the language, so the sibling bitpull_set_language cannot be ruled out from the description alone.
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 when-to-use guidance, no clarification of read-vs-set, and no reference to the obviously related bitpull_set_language sibling. The agent is left to infer the entire selection decision.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.