Retrieves the allowed List of Values (LOV) for a constrained prompt parameter in a Web Intelligence document, so you can validate or populate parameter choices.
Retrieves the List of Values (LOV) allowed for a constrained prompt parameter in a Webi document.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| webi_doc_id | Yes | ||
| parameter_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the entire behavioral burden. It implies a read-only retrieval and hints at a precondition ('constrained' parameter), but says nothing about auth/session requirements, what happens when a parameter is unconstrained or invalid, or any limits — a significant gap 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. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly a symptom of missing content rather than disciplined editing.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a tool with two fully undocumented parameters and no annotations, the description omits the prerequisite workflow and semantics needed to call it correctly.
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 0%, so both webi_doc_id and parameter_id are undocumented anywhere. The description only loosely implies the resource hierarchy ('Webi document' + 'prompt parameter'), adding no format, ID-source, or type detail the agent needs to supply valid values.
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 ('Retrieves') and resource ('List of Values for a constrained prompt parameter in a Webi document'). It is clearly distinct from sibling list tools like get_doc_parameters or get_variables, though it does not explicitly name those siblings for contrast.
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 when-to-use guidance and no named alternatives. It never says that parameter_id must first be obtained from get_doc_parameters, nor how this differs from simply listing a document's parameters, leaving the agent to infer the workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.