Read exact strategy input IDs and values.
Read exact strategy input IDs and values.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entity_id | Yes | ||
| target_id | No | Exact Chrome tab target ID from browser_list_tabs. Required for changes. | |
| expected_layout_id | No | Expected saved-layout ID. A mismatch stops the operation before writing. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already state readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds only 'exact', implying precision, but does not explain permissions, rate limits, side effects, or return behavior beyond what the annotations and tool name already convey.
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 a single short sentence with no wasted words and is front-loaded. However, it is terse to the point of omitting useful structure, such as what is returned or how the inputs are scoped.
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?
There is no output schema, yet the description does not explain the return shape beyond saying 'IDs and values'. It also omits what entity_id means and how target_id and expected_layout_id relate to this read operation. For a tool with three parameters and no output schema, this is incomplete.
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 67%, with target_id and expected_layout_id described in the schema but the required entity_id left undocumented. The description does not clarify what entity_id represents, nor how target_id or expected_layout_id affect a read operation, so it adds little beyond the schema.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Read exact strategy input IDs and values.' This clearly identifies a read operation over strategy inputs, and the name itself distinguishes it from strategy_set_inputs and indicator_get_inputs. It does not explicitly contrast with those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.
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 description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance. It does not say when to call strategy_get_inputs rather than strategy_set_inputs, indicator_get_inputs, strategy_get_report, or strategy_status. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Read'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.