Inspect a public-safe external supply candidate and preview the handoff without executing it, to evaluate AI agent services in the marketplace.
Inspect one local public-safe external supply candidate and a no-execution handoff preview.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| external_supply_candidate_id | Yes | External supply candidate id from search_external_marketplaces. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that it provides a 'no-execution handoff preview', which clarifies that no execution occurs. However, it doesn't elaborate on what the preview contains or any other behavioral traits.
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, compact sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. Minor jargon ('local public-safe', 'no-execution handoff preview') slightly reduces clarity but doesn't hurt conciseness.
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, single-parameter, read-only tool backed by strong annotations, the description provides enough context about what the tool does and that it includes a non-executing preview. There is no output schema, but the tool's simplicity mitigates the need for more detail.
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 coverage is 100% with a clear description for the single parameter, so the schema carries the semantic weight. The tool description does not add additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides.
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 action ('Inspect') and the resource ('one local public-safe external supply candidate'), and mentions a 'no-execution handoff preview' which suggests additional output. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'preview_external_handoff' or 'search_external_marketplaces'.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage after search (for a specific candidate ID), but does not state when not to use it or mention alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.