Retrieve the available fields for a specified entity from the ODS model.
Get available fields for an entity from ODS model.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entity_name | Yes | Entity name (e.g., 'StructureLevel') |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entity | Yes | ||
| attributes | Yes | ||
| description | Yes | ||
| derived_from | Yes | ||
| relationships | Yes | ||
| example_queries | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe read-only behavior is covered. The description adds the ODS model source context but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as error conditions or whether a connection must already exist. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately communicates the action and resource without unnecessary background.
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?
With one required parameter fully documented in the schema, a read-only annotation, and an output schema present, the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. No critical information is missing.
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 input schema provides 100% coverage for entity_name, including an explicit example, so the schema carries the parameter documentation burden. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides.
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 action ('Get available fields') and a clear resource ('an entity from ODS model'). It is plainly distinct from siblings like schema_list_entities and schema_field_exists by focusing on retrieving all fields for one entity.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as schema_field_exists or schema_list_entities. The intended usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.