Creates a concise extractive summary of provided text, with an adjustable maximum number of sentences.
Create a short extractive summary of the text.
Args: text: The text to summarize max_sentences: Maximum number of sentences in the summary (default 3)
Returns: JSON string with summary and metadata
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | ||
| max_sentences | 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?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'extractive' which implies the output is drawn from the input, but it does not explicitly state that the input is not modified or that it's read-only. It also does not mention any side effects or permissions needed. The behavior is somewhat transparent but not fully explicit.
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 moderately concise with a clear structure: a one-line summary followed by Args and Returns sections. It avoids unnecessary detail, but the inclusion of the full Args and Returns blocks is somewhat standard and not overly verbose.
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 simple operation with two parameters, the description adequately covers the input and output format. It mentions the return is a JSON string with summary and metadata, which is sufficient for an agent to understand the output, even though the exact metadata structure is not specified. The presence of an output schema (if any) would complement this.
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?
Although the schema has no descriptions, the tool description includes an 'Args' section that fully explains each parameter: 'text' is the text to summarize, and 'max_sentences' is the maximum number of sentences with a default of 3. This provides clear meaning beyond the schema.
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's function: 'Create a short extractive summary of the text.' It specifies the resource (text) and the action (summarize extractively). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on summarization rather than analysis or keyword extraction.
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 description does not provide guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives. It lacks explicit conditions or scenarios where summarization is preferred over other text processing tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.