Retrieve a Zendesk token for authenticating with the BeezUP Merchant API to manage stores and configuration.
Zendesk token
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": "ZendeskToken"
}
}| 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 carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It fails to state whether the tool is read-only, mutates state, requires authentication, or has side effects. The phrase 'token' suggests it might return a credential, but this is unclear.
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 under-specified, not concise. A single word does not earn its place; it omits critical information that an agent needs to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description must provide context. It completely fails to describe the tool's function, return type, or usage context, making it impossible for an agent to determine when to use it.
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 input schema has no parameters, so the description does not need to explain them. However, it adds no value beyond the schema. The baseline of 4 for zero parameters is reduced because the description is essentially empty, failing to convey the tool's purpose or output format.
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 'Zendesk token' merely restates the tool name without providing any verb or resource. It does not clarify whether this tool retrieves, creates, or validates a token, nor does it distinguish it from sibling tools like 'Login' or 'GetUserAccountInfo'.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention prerequisites like being logged in, nor does it indicate scenarios where retrieving a token is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.