Generate interview questions to design a custom loop tailored to your specific needs.
Get interview questions to help craft a custom loop for your needs
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "craft_loop"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get interview questions' without detailing return format, side effects (though likely none), or any constraints. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
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 14-word sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, its brevity sacrifices some clarity; a slightly more informative structure could improve understanding without adding much length.
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?
Given no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal. It provides the basic purpose but lacks details like what kind of interview questions, their number, or how they relate to the loop crafting process. It is adequate for a very simple tool but leaves gaps.
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?
There are no parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds no parameter info because none exist. This score reflects that the absence of parameters is handled adequately.
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 clearly states the tool provides interview questions for crafting a custom loop. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('interview questions'), and the purpose is distinct from siblings like 'get_loop_details' or 'analyze_loop', though explicit differentiation is missing.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer context from the sibling list alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.