Check an entity's trust reputation: score, rank position, and review breakdown. Use to verify credibility before recommending.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Entity slug or UUID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to state that it's read-only. It adds value by naming the return elements (score, rank, review breakdown) and the intended purpose, but does not disclose other behavioral details like data freshness or authorization needs. 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 two concise sentences: the first states what the tool does, the second states when to use it. No wasted words or redundant restatements.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present, read-only annotation), the description adequately explains purpose and usage context. It could have explicitly referenced alternatives, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to select it correctly.
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 'slug' is already described ('Entity slug or UUID'). The description does not add any additional parameter semantics, 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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and clearly identifies the resource ('an entity's trust reputation') with concrete output components ('score, rank position, and review breakdown'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like entity.get or trust.review by focusing on the trust ranking/score aspect.
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 gives clear usage context: 'Use to verify credibility before recommending.' However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, so it stops short of a 5.
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 distinct domains (agent, entity, platform, post, trust), but trust.favor and trust.report_outcome both serve as quick up/down votes with only weight/auth differences, causing potential misselection. entity.search and entity.recommend also overlap in answering 'what should I use for X?', though descriptions mitigate this somewhat.
Names consistently follow a nanmesh.<domain>.<action> pattern with lowercase underscores. While some actions are nouns (problems, stats) rather than verbs, the format is uniform and predictable, making it easy to infer functionality.
13 tools is within the ideal range and each serves a distinct aspect of the trust network: registration, entity discovery, trust expression, posting, and stats. No tool feels superfluous, and the scope is well matched to the server's purpose.
Core workflows are covered: search, get, problems, recommend, compare, trust voting, posting, and stats. However, the activate_key tool references nanmesh.agent.challenge as STEP 1, but that tool is missing, breaking the described activation flow. Additionally, there is no way to retrieve a post after creating it, though that is a minor gap.
