Generates a personalized greeting from a user name, with optional formal or casual style.
Returns a personalised greeting for the given user name
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The name of the user to greet, e.g. 'Alice' | |
| style | No | The greeting style: 'formal' or 'casual' (default: casual) |
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 full burden. 'Returns' usefully implies a side-effect-free read with no auth or mutation concerns, but the description never mentions that the 'style' parameter changes the output form, nor anything about the return format.
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 no filler, front-loading the return value and the input it depends on. Nothing could be trimmed without losing meaning.
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 trivial two-parameter tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description is sufficient to call it correctly. The only gap is that the effect of 'style' on the greeting is left entirely to the 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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema (including the 'formal'/'casual' options and default). The description adds nothing beyond restating the 'name' input, which is the baseline 3 case.
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 ('Returns') and resource ('a personalised greeting') scoped to an input ('the given user name'). An agent can distinguish it immediately from the unrelated siblings add_numbers and TestContext.
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 the trivial nature of the tool (greet a user by name), but the description offers no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative routing guidance. Nothing is misleading, but nothing is stated either.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.