Rank traits by frequency in Disney Lorcana cards to analyze deck trends and guide card selection. Set a limit to control how many traits are returned.
Return most common traits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It only states 'return most common traits' with no mention of side effects, data source, ordering, or limitations. Completely opaque.
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?
Extremely concise (3 words), but at the expense of clarity. It could be expanded slightly without becoming verbose.
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 tool is simple but the description lacks context about what 'traits' are, expected input/output, and how it relates to sibling tools. The output schema exists but is not described.
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?
The only parameter 'limit' has a default of 10 but the description does not explain its meaning (e.g., maximum number of traits). Schema coverage is 0%, so description should compensate but fails.
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 'Return most common traits' identifies a verb and resource, but 'traits' is vague and not differentiated from sibling tools like 'aggregate_cards'. It lacks specificity about what traits are (e.g., card traits).
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 tool versus alternatives. The description gives no context or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.