Retrieves error details from the Aeza API so agents can inspect reported errors and diagnose issues.
Other get errors GET /errors
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "other_get_errors"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that: no indication of auth requirements, rate limits, result volume, or whether errors are workspace-scoped. For a read endpoint whose main unknown is data scope and volume, this is a meaningful gap.
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?
It is only two lines, so there is no padding or repetition to trim, and the information is front-loaded. However the first line is a near-verbatim restatement of the tool name, so half the content is wasted rather than earning its place.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the error records contain or at least how many/what scope is returned. For a no-parameter open-world endpoint, an agent cannot tell what it will get back or whether calling it is expensive, making the definition under-specified for correct 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 tool takes zero parameters, so the parameter-semantics baseline is 4. Nothing in the description is needed to explain inputs, and the empty object schema with additionalProperties=false is self-explanatory.
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 restates the tool name ("Other get errors") and then only appends the HTTP route "GET /errors". It never says what kind of errors these are (API errors, background job failures, validation errors), what the scope is, or how the result differs from related list endpoints among the siblings. The route line adds a little concrete detail, but the purpose remains essentially tautological.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no pointer to any alternative endpoint for error inspection. The agent is left to infer entirely from the name that this retrieves an error listing. Nothing is misleading, but nothing is guided either.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.