get-annotated-messageReturns error, success, or debug messages with annotations to demonstrate metadata patterns and support MCP client validation.
Demonstrates how annotations can be used to provide metadata about content.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| messageType | Yes | Type of message to demonstrate different annotation patterns | |
| includeImage | No | Whether to include an example image |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, which covers the safety profile. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond this, such as what an 'annotated message' looks like or what the tool returns. The vague statement about demonstrating annotations does not provide useful behavioral information.
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 sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified and does not earn its place. It provides almost no useful information, making it more of a placeholder than a helpful description.
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?
With no output schema and only a vague description, the agent is left without a clear understanding of the tool's purpose, inputs, or return value. The complexity is low, but the description is too incomplete to support correct invocation or expectation setting.
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%, with both parameters ('messageType' and 'includeImage') having descriptions. The tool description itself provides no parameter details, but since the schema fully covers parameter semantics, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 'Demonstrates how annotations can be used to provide metadata about content,' which is vague and does not clearly indicate what the tool actually does (e.g., returns a message with annotations). It is not a tautology, but it lacks a specific verb and resource, and it does not distinguish the tool from its siblings like 'get-resource-links' or 'get-structured-content'.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without any basis for selecting it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.