Register and persist a custom hardware blueprint when planning with unlisted equipment, enabling rack designs to include complete, reusable device specifications.
Register and persist a custom hardware blueprint when planning with unlisted equipment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| blueprint | Yes | Complete hardware catalog blueprint specification. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint=false annotation already signals a write operation, and the description adds that the blueprint is registered and persisted. However, it does not disclose duplicate-slug behavior, validation requirements, whether existing entries can be overwritten, or other operational side effects.
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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It leads with the action and resource, then immediately adds the qualifying usage condition.
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 schema is extremely rich and fully documents the blueprint object, so the description need not repeat parameter details. However, for a complex write tool with no output schema, the description is minimal and omits workflow context such as how the registered blueprint becomes available to other tools or how conflicts are handled.
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?
The single top-level parameter, blueprint, is documented with 100% schema coverage and extensive nested descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema already does the heavy lifting.
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 names a specific action and resource: 'Register and persist a custom hardware blueprint.' It also scopes it to 'unlisted equipment,' which implicitly separates it from sibling catalog lookup tools, though it does not name those siblings 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?
It gives a clear usage condition: use this 'when planning with unlisted equipment.' That tells the agent when this tool is appropriate, but it does not explicitly state what to do for listed equipment or name an alternative such as search_catalog.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.