Read the Virada kit format and workflow before creating or editing a cycling kit file. It explains sheet and panel layouts, layer types, and required steps.
The kit format and how to make a kit: the sheets and their panels, the layer types, the workflow. Read first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds the useful framing that this is a static spec document whose output should precede other operations, but discloses nothing further (no size, rate limits, or freshness).
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 tight sentence that front-loads the subject (the kit format) and lists the covered topics without padding. The imperative "Read first" is placed last rather than first, a minor structural nit.
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 zero-parameter reference tool with a full output schema, the description needn't explain return values and adequately signals the scope of the spec. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, with only the lack of sibling differentiation as a gap.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The schema correctly defines an empty object.
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 names a specific resource (the kit format/spec) and enumerates its contents: sheets and panels, layer types, workflow. It clearly reads as a reference-documentation retrieval tool, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings like get_template or validate_kit.
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?
"Read first" is an explicit sequencing directive that tells the agent to call this before the other kit tools, which is genuinely useful routing guidance. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when-not to use it, so it falls just below the top tier.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.