Retrieve a local sound palette by ID while ignoring expiration to avoid server errors.
Look up one process-local palette without treating expiry as a server error.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| palette_id | Yes | Process-local palette identifier. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| found | Yes | ||
| state | No | ||
| message | Yes | ||
| process_local | No | ||
| schema_version | No | 1.0 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v10.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false). The description adds genuine behavioral nuance beyond annotations: the 'without treating expiry as a server error' clause tells the agent how to handle expired palettes, which is valuable operational context.
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 12-word sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds one critical behavioral clause. No filler, every phrase contributes to the agent's understanding.
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 one-parameter getter with a rich annotation set and an output schema, the description is complete. It conveys purpose, scope, and a subtle error-handling behavior, leaving little for an agent to guess. Return details are properly deferred to the output schema.
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 100% — palette_id is already documented as 'Process-local palette identifier.' The description repeats the term 'process-local' but adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so it stays at the baseline for full schema coverage.
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 ('look up') and resource ('one process-local palette'), making the tool's core function immediately clear. The word 'one' distinguishes it from list-style siblings like sound_selection_inventory, and 'process-local' scopes it away from any global palette tools.
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?
The description implies the usage context — retrieve a single palette by ID without surfacing expiry as an error — but never explicitly names alternatives or states when-not-to-use. With a large sibling family, some explicit routing guidance would help, but the basic use case is still inferable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.