Identify common customers by intersecting two Customer sets loaded for this session, matching primary keys to return only overlapping records.
intersect two Customer sets, identified by primary keys and reloaded for this session.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| left | Yes | ||
| right | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that sets are 'reloaded for this session', which hints at session-scoped behavior, but it doesn't explain what 'reloaded' means, whether the operation mutates anything, whether the input arrays are primary key values, or what the output looks like. For a set operation 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?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the operation and resource. It earns its place by adding the primary-key and session-reload context. No wasted words.
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 set-operation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is too thin. An agent needs to know what the output is (intersected set? count?), whether the operation is read-only, and how the session reload works. The sibling family suggests a pattern, but the description alone doesn't make the tool safely callable.
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 says the sets are 'identified by primary keys', which clarifies that the string arrays contain primary key values, but it doesn't explain the semantics of 'left' and 'right' beyond that, nor the order/duplicate behavior. The description adds some meaning but leaves important parameter semantics undocumented.
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 ('intersect') and resource ('Customer sets'), and identifies the sets by primary keys. It distinguishes from siblings like union_customer and subtract_customer by naming the set operation, though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings.
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?
The description implies usage: intersect two Customer sets for this session. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this over alternatives, but the set-operation family (union/subtract/intersect) makes the context reasonably clear. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.