Explain source access requirements for a given source ID without exposing server secrets.
Explain source access requirements without exposing server secrets.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source | Yes | ||
| registration_url | No | ||
| credential_policy | No | ||
| server_configured | No | ||
| operator_environment_variables | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only adds the constraint that server secrets will not be exposed, which is useful, but it does not say whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, has side effects, or what the response contains. The output schema covers return values, but invocation behavior remains 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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core purpose and a key behavioral constraint without wasted words. It earns its place.
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 simple (one required parameter, output schema present), but the description does not provide enough context for a correct invocation: no indication of where source_id comes from, no usage conditions, and no behavioral details such as auth or caching. The secret-exposure constraint is the only extra context supplied.
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 schema has 0% description coverage for the single source_id parameter. The description does not explain what source_id refers to or how to obtain valid values (e.g., from list_sources). Because the schema is bare and the description does not compensate, an agent is left to infer source_id semantics from its name.
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 uses a specific verb ('Explain') with a clear resource ('source access requirements'), so an agent can tell that the tool describes how to access a source. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from list_sources, but the focus on access requirements separates it from listing sources.
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 phrase 'Explain source access requirements' implies the tool is for users who need setup or access details for a specific source. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention any sibling alternatives, so an agent must infer the context from the name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.