Greet multiple people in a single call by passing an array of names, returning a friendly message for each recipient in one response.
Greet multiple people at once.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| names | 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 behavioral burden. It does not disclose what the greeting returns, whether each name is validated or errors are raised for bad input, or whether greeting has any side effect beyond echoing text.
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 short sentence with the key information front-loaded and zero filler. Brevity is appropriate for a simple tool, though trimming leaves nothing that explains the parameter.
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?
The tool is trivial and has no output schema, and the description conveys the basic operation. Still, with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage, it omits input constraints and any return behavior an agent might need to call it correctly.
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% for the single 'names' parameter, so the description must compensate — but it says only 'multiple people', adding no constraints, format, ordering, or duplicate-handling semantics for the string array beyond what the type already implies.
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 clear verb ('greet') and resource ('multiple people'), which implicitly contrasts with the sibling 'hello' (singular greeting). However, it never names or explicitly distinguishes itself from 'hello', so an agent must infer the plurality difference rather than read it.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. There is no explicit statement like 'use this instead of hello when greeting more than one person', so routing between the two siblings is left entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.