Retrieve short summaries for multiple OEIS sequence A-numbers at once, including name, keywords, offset, term count, and first terms; unknown A-numbers return an error.
Short summaries of many entries at once: name, keywords, offset, number of terms and the first n_terms terms. Unknown A-numbers come back with an error.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| anums | Yes | ||
| n_terms | 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavior — unknown A-numbers return an error — but does not say whether the whole call fails or only the offending items, nor whether there is a cap on how many entries can be requested at once.
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, front-loaded with the batch-summary purpose followed by the returned fields and the error behavior. Compact and nearly waste-free, with only mild awkwardness in 'the first n_terms terms'.
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?
An output schema exists so return values needn't be restated, but for a 2-parameter tool with zero schema coverage the description leaves the key input (anums) undefined and omits batch-size limits and partial-failure semantics. The gap is too large for the available structured data to cover.
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 carry both parameters and it does not. It never explains what an 'A-number' is (the required anums array), whether ordering is preserved, or what the default of 12 means for n_terms.
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-shaped resource (summaries) and enumerates exactly what a summary contains: name, keywords, offset, term count, and first terms. It reads as a batch/lightweight counterpart to get_entry, though it does not name that sibling to sharpen the contrast.
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?
'many entries at once' implies a batch use case and the n_terms limit implies a lightweight preview, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Nothing tells the agent to prefer get_entry when full entries are needed, despite that being the closest sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.