List gym equipment and dumbbell/kettlebell weights; use owned_only=true to show only equipment you selected.
List equipment (owned_only=true: only what you selected) plus dumbbell/kettlebell weights.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| owned_only | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | ||
| equipment | Yes | ||
| dumbbell_weights | Yes | ||
| kettlebell_weights | Yes |
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 and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope about owned_only=true meaning 'only what you selected' and notes that weights are included, but it does not discuss external/open-world implications, auth needs, or edge cases.
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 front-loaded sentence with a parenthetical that explains the parameter inline. There is no wasted wording, and the most important information comes first.
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 annotations cover read-only/open-world behavior. For a one-parameter listing tool, the description is nearly complete, though it could clarify the owned_only=false case.
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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains that owned_only=true limits results to selected equipment, which is the key semantic for the only parameter. It does not explicitly describe owned_only=false, but the default and boolean nature make that inferable.
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 states a specific verb and resource: list equipment and dumbbell/kettlebell weights. It is immediately clear what the tool returns, and no sibling tool covers equipment listing.
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?
Usage is implied by 'List equipment', but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool, when not to use it, or what alternatives exist. Given the unrelated sibling set, the risk of confusion is low, but guidance is minimal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.