Retrieve the origin and freshness of the ENS data served by the MCP server to verify its currency and source for compliance assessments.
Devuelve el origen y la frescura de los datos servidos.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool reports data origin and freshness, which is meaningful context, but does not disclose anything about caching, snapshot identity, or timing behavior beyond that.
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 short sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it could have included a routing hint without becoming bloated.
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 in the description. However, for a tool whose purpose depends on distinguishing it from many similarly named siblings, the description is thin and provides no operational context such as when the snapshot is generated or what freshness means for the caller.
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 no parameter documentation is needed. The schema and description are consistent, and the baseline for a no-param tool is a 4.
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 names a specific resource (data origin and freshness) but the verb is vague ('Devuelve') and it doesn't distinguish this tool from any of the 18 sibling tools. An agent could not confidently route to snapshot_status versus get_measure or list_data_packs based on this text alone.
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 when-not-to-use, and no named alternatives. The description merely states what is returned without indicating the conditions that should trigger calling it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.