Fetch a random programming joke on demand. Use it to add humor to applications or conversations.
Get a random programming joke.
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": "get_random_joke"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure responsibility. It only states the function without mentioning return format, side effects, safety (e.g., read-only), or possible errors. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity and 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 simple tool with no parameters, the description covers the core purpose, but it lacks details about the return value structure (e.g., plain string vs object) and any error conditions. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, this is a minor gap that could confuse an agent expecting a specific response format.
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 0 parameters, so parameter semantics are not applicable. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies for 0-parameter tools, and the description adds value by specifying the 'programming' domain of the joke without redundant parameter detail.
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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and a specific resource 'a random programming joke', which clearly differentiates it from the sibling tool get_random_quote (general quotes vs programming jokes). It is unambiguous and directly states what the tool does.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_random_quote. The description simply states the function without indicating preferred use cases, exclusions, or context (e.g., 'use for programming-related humor').
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.