Inspect a specific tool’s full JSON schema and parameter details before invocation, so you can call the correct arguments without loading every upstream schema.
Inspect the full JSON schema and detailed parameter specifications of a specific tool before invoking it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| server | Yes | The downstream server ID hosting the tool. | |
| tool_name | Yes | The target tool name to inspect. |
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 the full disclosure burden. "Inspect" correctly implies a read-only, non-mutating operation, but nothing is said about error behavior when the server or tool_name is invalid, permission requirements, or whether the output is large. Adequate but shallow for a zero-annotation tool.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the purpose and the timing of use are packed into one line with nothing wasted.
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 two-parameter, read-only inspection tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns (schema and parameter specs) and when to call it. Only minor gaps remain, such as failure behavior for unknown server/tool_name.
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% and both parameters (server, tool_name) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no format, constraint, or naming guidance beyond what the schema already provides, so it sits at the baseline.
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 gives a specific verb (inspect) and resource (full JSON schema and parameter specifications of a specific tool), which is clearly distinct from sibling verbs like mesh_search_tools and mesh_invoke_tool. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, but the action is unambiguous.
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?
"Before invoking it" states a clear condition for use, effectively positioning this as the pre-flight step to mesh_invoke_tool. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative, but the context of use is well established.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.