Adds two integers and returns their sum. Use for basic arithmetic in MCP workflows.
Adds two integers and returns their sum
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| a | Yes | The first integer operand | |
| b | Yes | The second integer operand |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the return value (the sum) and the operand types, which is useful, but it says nothing about overflow behavior, non-integer input handling, or error conditions for a pure arithmetic operation.
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 sentence with zero filler, front-loading the action and stating the result. Nothing is wasted and nothing essential is omitted.
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 two-parameter pure arithmetic tool with no output schema, the definition covers the action, input types, and return value adequately. Only minor gaps remain around edge-case behavior, which is likely out of scope for this simplicity level.
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% – both parameters 'a' and 'b' are documented as 'first/second integer operand'. The description only restates that two integers are involved, adding no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.
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 (adds), the exact resource (two integers), and the outcome (their sum), so an agent knows precisely what it does. Sibling tools (greet_user, TestContext) are unrelated, so differentiation isn't relevant, but the definition stands on its own clearly.
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 guidance on when to use this tool, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives or edge cases. The usage is self-evident from the purpose, but nothing in the text explicitly directs the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.