Fetches LangLa server protocol docs by MSG number to reveal wire messages, ports, and packet field ordering, helping client-fixing agents avoid guessing packets.
Tra nhanh tài liệu theo số MSG (vd. 62, 63, -49, -88, -79).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| msg | Yes | Số message, có thể âm: 62 | -49 | −88 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: it does not state that this is a read-only lookup, what the return value looks like, or how missing/invalid MSG numbers are handled. The only behavioral hint is that negative numbers are valid inputs, which is useful but narrow.
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 the operation first and concrete examples second. Nothing is wasted and no filler is present.
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 one-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is workable but under-specified: it omits the meaning of negative MSG values, error behavior for unknown numbers, and any routing versus sibling lookup tools. Adequate as a minimum, but with visible gaps.
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% and the single parameter is already documented as "Số message, có thể âm: 62 | -49 | −88". The examples in the description (62, 63, -49, -88, -79) largely repeat what the schema already conveys, so the baseline of 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?
The description states a clear verb+resource combination ("tra nhanh tài liệu" = quickly look up a document) and pinpoints the lookup key as the MSG number. This distinguishes it somewhat from search_docs/list_docs by implying a direct numeric lookup, but it never names a sibling or explicitly contrasts its scope with them.
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 only implied: the examples of MSG numbers suggest you call it when you already have an MSG identifier, as opposed to browsing or searching. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of the sibling alternatives (read_doc, search_docs, list_docs).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.