gambot_generate_organization_nameGenerate a unique organization name from your company name and tax ID, adding a suffix when the original name is already taken.
Generate a unique organization name from a company name + tax id (adds a suffix if taken).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| companyName | Yes | ||
| companyIdNumber | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key behavioral trait (appends a suffix when the base name is already taken, guaranteeing uniqueness), which is genuinely useful. However, it doesn't cover potential side effects, auth requirements, or what happens on failure. The suffix behavior is the most important trait and it is disclosed, so a 3 is appropriate.
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 zero wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the uniqueness behavior is appended compactly. Every element earns its place.
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 2-parameter generation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, inputs, and uniqueness behavior adequately. The main gap is that it doesn't describe the return format, which the agent would need to know how to consume the result, though a name generator's output is fairly predictable.
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%, so the description must compensate. It maps 'company name' to companyName and 'tax id' to companyIdNumber, clarifying their roles in the generation process. However, it doesn't add format, length, or constraint details beyond the self-explanatory parameter names. It partially compensates for the coverage gap but not fully.
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+resource: 'Generate a unique organization name from a company name + tax id'. It clearly communicates the tool's function and the uniqueness guarantee (adds a suffix if taken). It implicitly distinguishes itself from all siblings, none of which perform name generation, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated. The description is purely functional and leaves the agent to infer appropriate usage context on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.