Retrieve an operation's official description, permissions, and parameter and response schemas to verify requirements before calling it in Buk MCP.
Return the official description, permissions, parameter schema and response schema of a Buk operation. Always check this before using a new operation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| operationId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnly, idempotent, and closed-world, so safety is already covered; the description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the payload contents (permissions plus both schemas near schema). It does not mention latency, caching, or error behavior for unknown operationIds, which keeps it from a 5.
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, no filler, with the return contents front-loaded and the imperative guidance second. Every clause 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?
With no output schema, the description does the work of explaining the return value (description, permissions, parameter schema, response schema), which is exactly what's needed. The remaining gap is the provenance of operationId, unaddressed in both schema and description.
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% and the single parameter is documented only as a bare string. The description implies operationId identifies "a Buk operation" but never says where to obtain it — most likely from buk_list_operations — which is the one detail an agent actually needs.
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 (return) and resource (official documentation for a Buk operation), enumerating exactly what comes back: description, permissions, parameter schema, response schema. An agent can distinguish it from buk_list_operations (which enumerates operations) by inference, though the sibling is never named explicitly.
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?
"Always check this before using a new operation" gives a clear, actionable trigger condition tied to the agent's workflow. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when the tool is unnecessary (e.g., for already-known operations), keeping it at a strong 4 rather than a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.