Get a clear definition of any DirectAI MCP action, including its JSON parameters, example usage, and constraints, to understand how to call it correctly.
Описание действия: параметры (JSON Schema), пример, ограничения.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It only mentions that it describes parameters, example, and restrictions, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, requires authentication, or any other behavioral traits. The description is insufficient for safe invocation.
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 extremely short (one line), but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It omits critical details that an agent needs, so brevity is not a virtue here.
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?
Although an output schema exists, the description does not explain what the tool returns beyond vague mentions of 'example' and 'restrictions'. With a single parameter and no behavioral context, the definition is far from complete for reliable tool selection and invocation.
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 one required parameter 'name' with type string, but the description does not explain its meaning or expected format. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the phrase 'parameters (JSON Schema)' merely repeats the schema structure without adding semantic value.
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 'Action description: parameters (JSON Schema), example, restrictions' which is vague and does not specify a concrete verb or resource. It reads as a template rather than a specific tool purpose, and it does not differentiate from siblings like list_accounts or search_actions.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of contexts, exclusions, or preferred scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.