Decode a carried blueprint by label to get relative entity positions and its item bill. Supports pagination via offset and limit for efficient reading of windowed data.
Decode a carried blueprint by label into relative entity positions and its item bill (read in windows).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| book | No | ||
| label | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Decode' and 'read' imply a non-mutating operation, and 'in windows' hints at pagination, but there is no explicit statement about side effects, prerequisites (e.g., blueprint must be carried), or permission needs. This is adequate but not rich.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Decode a carried blueprint by label') and then specifies the output. There is no fluff or redundancy.
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?
An output schema exists, so return format is not needed. However, the description does not clarify what constitutes a 'carried blueprint', what 'relative entity positions' and 'item bill' mean, or what happens if the label is not found. Given the tool's moderate complexity and zero annotations, more context would help the agent invoke 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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'by label' (covering the label parameter) and 'read in windows' (covering limit/offset), but the 'book' parameter is entirely unaddressed. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema and does not fully explain all parameters, leaving the agent to guess at book's purpose.
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 verb 'decode' and the resource 'carried blueprint by label', and specifies the output: relative entity positions and item bill. This differentiates it from siblings like list_blueprints (listing) and build_blueprint (building), making the purpose unambiguous.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_blueprints or import_blueprint. The phrase 'by label' implies a specific blueprint is targeted, and 'read in windows' suggests pagination, but no exclusions or alternative conditions are given. The usage context is inferred rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.