Retrieve a random excuse, optionally filtered by family, office, college, or party categories, to quickly provide a plausible reason when you need one.
Get a random excuse, optionally by category.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | No | Category: family, office, college, party, or unspecified |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.11Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that output is random and category-filterable, but does not explain return format or any behavioral nuances beyond the structured hints.
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 with no wasted words. It delivers the core action and the only option immediately.
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?
For a simple randomized retrieval tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. It could mention that no category returns any excuse, but that is minor given the simplicity and structured hints.
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 100% and the single optional 'category' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including allowed values. The description only restates that category is optional, adding no meaningful semantics 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get a random excuse', and notes the optional category filter. It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not distinguish itself from the many other random-generation sibling tools.
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 'optionally by category' implies how to narrow results, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. Usage is only lightly implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.