greetGenerate a friendly greeting for any name, showcasing middleware processing in a demo scenario.
A simple greeting tool to demonstrate middleware functionality.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falsev1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations declaring readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, the description discloses no behavior. It does not mention what the tool returns, side effects, or any operational details. The phrase 'greeting tool' is too vague to inform an agent about the tool's actual runtime behavior.
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 brief and does contain the core idea ('greeting tool') in the front, but the brevity is under-specification rather than efficient communication. It lacks critical details while being too short to provide any practical value.
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 tool with a single optional parameter and no output schema, the description is still incomplete. It does not explain what the tool actually does (beyond the vague 'greeting'), what the expected return value is, or any other contextual information an agent would need to use it correctly. The annotations help with safety, but not with operational completeness.
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?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must explain the 'name' parameter, but it offers no meaning or usage guidance. It does not state that the name is used to personalize the greeting, what format is expected, or how the default null is handled. The parameter remains entirely undocumented.
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 says 'A simple greeting tool' which essentially restates the tool name and title, adding little specificity. It does not state the action (e.g., 'returns a greeting message') or the resource/operation, making it nearly tautological. It also does not distinguish from the currency sibling tools beyond the obvious semantic difference.
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 about when to use this tool or when to prefer alternatives. The description mentions demonstrating middleware functionality, which is unrelated to usage context, and there is no mention of conditions, exclusions, or alternatives among the sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.