Retrieve a child's message threads from a Norwegian school parent portal, including thread ID, title, sender, and timestamp. Use the child ID from list_children.
List beskjedtråder for et barn (bruk childId fra list_children).
Returnerer tråder med threadUid, tittel, avsender og tidspunkt.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| child_id | Yes | ||
| page_size | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It mentions what is returned at a high level (threadUid, title, sender, timestamp), which is useful, but omits critical traits like pagination behavior, permissions required, whether it's read-only, and what can go wrong. For a list tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by return field details. No filler. Could be slightly more compact, but it is efficient and well-structured.
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 list tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description provides the core purpose and return fields. However, it lacks pagination details (especially relevant given the page_size parameter) and doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions or rate limits. An output schema exists, so return values need not be fully explained, but the description still feels incomplete for safe and correct invocation.
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 description coverage is 0%, with 2 parameters (child_id required, page_size with default). The description does add value by explaining that child_id should come from list_children, which is not in the schema. However, it says nothing about page_size or pagination, leaving half the parameters undocumented. Partial compensation justifies a 3.
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 and resource: 'List beskjedtråder for et barn' (message threads for a child). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_message_thread (singular) and list_children, though it doesn't name any alternative explicitly. The purpose is clear despite being in Norwegian.
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?
Implied usage: it references list_children as the source of childId, which is helpful context. However, it doesn't state when to use this tool versus get_message_thread or read_message_attachments. No explicit exclusions or alternative scenarios are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.