Diagnose a B2B user's organizational context—including unit, cost center, budget, approvers, and permissions—with language-aligned output.
Diagnoses a B2B user's organizational context (Unit, Cost Center, Budget, Approvers, Permissions) with language-aligned output.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | zh | |
| user_uid | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses language-aligned output, but says nothing about whether it is read-only, what permissions are needed, whether it mutates state, or how it handles a user with no org context.
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 efficient sentence with the purpose front-loaded and no wasted words. Sizing is appropriate for the amount of information conveyed.
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?
The output schema relieves the need to explain return values, but with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage the definition leaves too much unspecified for a diagnostic tool. When-to-use and parameter meaning are the notable gaps.
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%, so the description must compensate. It only obliquely explains the 'lang' parameter via 'language-aligned output'; 'user_uid' is never described and no format or defaults are given.
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 ('Diagnoses') and resource ('B2B user's organizational context') and enumerates the inspected facets (Unit, Cost Center, Budget, Approvers, Permissions). Clear enough to distinguish from siblings like hac_b2b_scaffold_org, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.
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 on when to use this versus alternatives such as hac_b2b_scaffold_org or hac_spartacus_doctor, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The word 'Diagnoses' only implies a troubleshooting posture.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.