Retrieve equipment records for microscopes, hoods, and VM desktops, including lab, room, aliases, objectives, light paths, and laser lines; filter results by lab or kind.
Every item on the site - microscopes (kind 'scope'), hoods, VM desktops - with id, lab, aliases, room, page, objectives, light paths and laser lines. Filter by lab and/or kind.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lab | No | ||
| kind | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations at all, the description carries the burden; "Every item on the site" implies a read-only enumeration, but read-only status, result-set size, and pagination behavior are never stated. The enumeration of returned fields partially duplicates the output schema instead of adding behavioral context like whether hidden/unbookable equipment is excluded.
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?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by the filter mechanic. The field enumeration is slightly listy, but nothing is filler and the essential information lands first.
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?
An output schema exists, so the returned-field list is a bonus rather than a necessity, and the tool is only two optional params. An agent can call it correctly; the only real gap is the unspecified lab identifier format and kind vocabulary, which matters given 0% schema coverage.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for both params — and it does only partly: it names both filters and illustrates kind with 'scope', but never says whether lab is a name, id, or alias, whether matching is exact or substring, or what the full set of kind values is.
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 names the resource concretely ("Every item on the site") and grounds it with examples — microscopes tagged kind 'scope', hoods, VM desktops — plus the fields returned. It's clearly a bulk listing rather than a lookup, though it doesn't name a sibling like ipa_item or ipa_search to contrast with.
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?
"Filter by lab and/or kind" implies the intended usage pattern, and the 'scope' example shows how kind is used in practice. There is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-ipa_item/ipa_search guidance and no statement that results are unfiltered when both params are omitted.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.