Fetch preventive maintenance work orders in a date range and calculate compliance, showing how many were completed on time versus overdue.
Fetch preventive maintenance (PM) work orders in a date range and calculate compliance — how many were completed on time vs overdue.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| date_to | No | End date YYYY-MM-DD | |
| location | No | Filter by location (optional) | |
| date_from | No | Start date YYYY-MM-DD |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions fetching and calculating but doesn't disclose whether it's read-only, what the output structure is, or any side effects. The agent cannot know if this is a safe read operation or if it requires special permissions.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the primary action and outcome. No redundant phrasing, and it conveys the core purpose without unnecessary detail.
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 tool that calculates compliance, the description omits critical information about the return format (e.g., whether it returns raw work orders, a summary, or both), pagination behavior, and any edge cases. Without annotations or an output schema, the description is insufficient for an agent to predict results.
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 75%, with limit lacking a description. The description adds the concept of date range and compliance but doesn't enrich parameter meanings beyond what the schema already provides. Since coverage is high, baseline 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 clearly states the verb 'fetch' and resource 'preventive maintenance (PM) work orders', and adds the calculation of compliance. It is specific enough to distinguish from general get_work_orders and get_overdue_work_orders, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
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 siblings like get_overdue_work_orders or get_work_orders. The description implies use for PM compliance, but doesn't state conditions or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.