Retrieve JSON chamber package details, cloak license cost, and key-only open access rules.
Package info, cloak license ($9/mo · $99/yr), open is keys-only.
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": "chamber_info"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a licensing detail and a keys-only constraint for 'open', but it does not explain what 'package info' includes, whether the tool performs any side effects, or what the response looks like. The behavior is only partially transparent.
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 description is extremely short and front-loaded, which is good, but it is fragmented and lacks a clear subject-verb structure. It reads like a set of notes rather than a coherent tool description, so while it is concise, it sacrifices clarity.
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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide a fuller picture of what the tool returns and how it behaves. The current description gives only fragments: package info, cloak license pricing, and a keys-only note about open. It is not complete enough for an agent to confidently know what calling this tool will yield.
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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden on the description. The schema is empty and coverage is 100%, meaning there is nothing for the description to clarify about inputs. The description's content about package info and license is contextually useful even though it is not parameter-related.
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 is telegraphic but does convey that this tool provides package info, cloak license details, and notes that 'open' is keys-only. It does not use a clear verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', and it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as chamber_status or chamber_cloak, though the mention of package info and license pricing gives some differentiation.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus chamber_status, chamber_cloak, or chamber_open. The phrase 'open is keys-only' hints at a caveat for the open operation, but it does not state when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.