Browse documents in a ColdState index. Returns titles, snippets, content, state classification, and E-scores.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max documents to return | |
| offset | No | Offset for pagination | |
| index_id | Yes | Index ID, e.g. idx_... |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context by enumerating the returned data fields, which is useful, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, ordering, or any constraints beyond what the schema provides.
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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences that are front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the return fields. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or irrelevant content.
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 relatively simple read-only browsing tool, the description adequately covers what it does and what it returns. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by listing the returned fields. However, it does not mention ordering or any filtering behavior, which could be relevant for a 'browse' operation, and it doesn't reference sibling tools for context.
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 covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the schema already explains the parameters. The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond the schema, not even reiterating the parameter purposes.
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 uses a specific verb ('Browse') and identifies the resource ('documents in a ColdState index'), while also listing the return fields (titles, snippets, content, state classification, E-scores). This makes the purpose clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search or fetch.
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 other coldstate tools (e.g., search, fetch, list_indexes). The description simply states what it does without mentioning scenarios, alternatives, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but the three search tools (search, search_global, batch_search) and the two relation tools (related, isomorph) could cause initial confusion despite clear descriptions. Overall boundaries are clear enough that agents should select correctly with careful reading.
Every tool uses the consistent coldstate_ prefix followed by a descriptive verb_noun pattern (e.g., batch_search, browse_documents, list_indexes). The naming is uniform and predictable, making the toolset easy to navigate.
At 16 tools, the server sits at the upper edge of what feels reasonable, and the calibration guidance flags 16-25 as heavy. However, each tool serves a distinct function in the knowledge-search lifecycle, so the count is defensible but still slightly high for a single server.
The toolset covers the full read-only knowledge workflow: searching, browsing, fetching, citing, verifying, explaining, resolving, and exploring relations. It also includes meta-tools for capabilities, domains, snapshots, and statistics, leaving no obvious gaps for its stated purpose.