Lists external crosswalks with their origin, coverage, and validity for ENS compliance, optionally including inactive records.
Lista los crosswalks externos, su procedencia, cobertura y vigencia.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include_inactive | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully discloses the returned facets (provenance, coverage, validity), but says nothing about the active/inactive default behavior implied by the single parameter.
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 compact sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Nothing is wasted, though it is arguably too terse for the behavioral details it omits.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the annotations carry the safety profile. What is missing is the routing context against 'query_crosswalk' and the semantics of include_inactive, which for a simple list tool is a modest but real gap.
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 0% and the only parameter, include_inactive, is never mentioned in the description. Its self-descriptive name and false default mitigate somewhat, but the description does not compensate for the coverage gap by explaining what inactive packs mean or when to include them.
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?
States a specific verb ('Lista') and resource ('crosswalks externos'), plus the attributes returned (procedencia, cobertura, vigencia). It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling 'query_crosswalk', leaving the boundary between listing and querying implicit.
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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the obvious alternative 'query_crosswalk'. The agent must infer that this is an enumeration tool versus a lookup tool on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.