Retrieve formatting exemplars for a specific Maharashtra court forum, including header, separator, annexure, and paper settings needed for court-ready pleadings.
Return the forum-config exemplar (header, separator, annexure, paper).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| forum_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the content structure (header, separator, annexure, paper) but no extra behavioral details such as authentication, rate limits, or side effects. With annotations in place, the description adds marginal value beyond them.
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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the primary action and resource. Every word earns its place, and the parenthetical list of output components is efficient and clear.
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 simple getter with one parameter and an existing output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states what the tool returns and hints at the content. The only missing piece is the semantics of forum_id, but given the low complexity and available output schema, the description is adequate.
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 schema has a single parameter (forum_id) with zero schema description coverage (0%), and the tool description does not mention forum_id at all. Since the description must compensate for the missing schema documentation, and it does not, the agent receives no explanation of what forum_id represents, its format, or how it relates to the return value.
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 clear verb ('Return') and a specific resource ('forum-config exemplar') and even enumerates its parts ('header, separator, annexure, paper'). It is distinct enough to identify the tool's function, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_template or get_case_type_format, so it misses a full differentiation point.
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 given on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools in the same ecosystem. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or alternative tools, leaving an agent to infer the appropriate usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.