Queues a search for every Costas array of a given order (4 to 11, default 7) and returns a ticket to collect against. Three open searches at a time per caller. Each request to this endpoint advances the oldest unfinished search before answering.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | No | ||
| name | No | ||
| order | No | 4 to 11; 8 and above will not finish quickly | |
| ticket | No | a ticket from an earlier write; send this instead of name and key |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / ticketAdded value: +{
+ "description": "a ticket from an earlier write; send this instead of name and key",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "name",
- "key"
-]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose queueing, asynchrony, the per-caller limit, and the non-obvious behavior that each request advances the oldest search. It does not mention failure modes or what happens if the limit is exceeded, but the core side effects are clear.
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 sentences, no filler, with the primary purpose first. The rate-limit and advancement behaviors are packed in without bloating the text.
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?
The description covers the queue, ticket, limit, order range, and default, which are the tricky parts, but it omits any explanation of key/name and never names compute_collect as the way to retrieve results. Without an output schema or annotations, key/name ambiguity leaves an agent guessing.
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 coverage is only 50%, and the description only adds meaning for order (range and default). The key and name parameters remain completely unexplained in both schema and description, and the ticket parameter's 'instead of name and key' guidance is only in the schema. The description does not compensate for the undocumented parameters.
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?
Description opens with a specific action ('Queues a search...') and names the exact resource (Costas arrays of a given order) and the result (a ticket to collect against). This clearly separates it from compute_collect, which is the implied retrieval counterpart.
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?
It communicates constraints (three open searches, advancement on each request) but never explicitly says 'use compute_collect to retrieve results' or states when to use this tool instead of the many sibling tools. The 'collect against' phrase is suggestive, not directive.
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.