Preview source files from the installed house shop example by supplying a validated resource or controller name; read-only, with no file writes or custom feature implementation.
Preview source files from the installed canonical house shop example, with a validated resource/controller name. Does not write files or implement arbitrary requested features.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the no-write claim largely restates them. The description does add that the target is a fixed canonical example rather than arbitrary resources, but it does not say what 'preview' returns or how output is shaped.
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?
Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the scope exclusion second. No filler, though the phrase 'resource/controller name' adds slight ambiguity rather than 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 single-parameter, read-only preview tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope limits, and safety sufficiently. The only real gap is what the preview actually surfaces, which is minor given the fixed-example framing.
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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter is an undescribed 'name'. The description gestures at it with 'validated resource/controller name', which is a meaningful hint, but the slash phrasing is ambiguous about whether it identifies a resource, a controller, or both.
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 (preview) and resource (source files from the installed canonical house shop example). However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like review_fivem_source or inspect_fivem_resource, leaving the agent to infer whether it previews rendered output or raw files.
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?
The negative clause 'does not write files or implement arbitrary requested features' usefully bounds scope, but there is no explicit statement of when to pick this over the sibling source-inspection tools. Usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.