Returns structured information about the Myagi platform: current phase, milestones, conceptual model, and public roadmap.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| topic | No | Optional. One of: 'overview', 'phase', 'roadmap', 'concepts', 'contact'. If omitted, returns overview. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates the tool is a read-only query returning structured information, which is minimal but sufficient for a simple informational tool. However, it does not disclose any potential side effects or authentication requirements.
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 efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without extraneous details. Every word earns its place.
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 optional parameter, no output schema) and read-only nature, the description is largely complete. It covers the main query options but omits mention of the return format and the 'contact' topic.
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 has 100% coverage with a single parameter including description and enum values. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema and even mentions 'milestones' which is not an enum option, potentially causing confusion. The tool does not elaborate on what each topic returns.
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 clearly states the tool returns structured information about the Myagi platform and enumerates specific types: current phase, milestones, conceptual model, and public roadmap. This verb+resource combination effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like registry_lookup and submit_inquiry.
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?
The description implies it is for obtaining platform information but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, though the sibling tool names suggest different purposes.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct function: query_platform for platform info, registry_lookup for domain scores, submit_inquiry for contact. No overlap.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (query_platform, registry_lookup, submit_inquiry).
3 tools is appropriate for a focused registry server covering platform info, data lookup, and contact submission.
Covers core operations for the stated purpose, though missing features like domain registration or listing might be useful for some use cases.