返回标准登记表 ↔ 实体声明 的自动交叉校验结果：哪些机械/总线声明能被已知标准集核实、哪些声明的编码不在已知指定集中（无法核实），以及登记表缺口与行业标准覆盖情况。这是数据质量自检，不是兼容性裁决；其作用是指出"声明了但出处存疑"的条目，供人工补全证据。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scope | No | 返回范围：all=完整审计报告（默认）；conflicts=仅数据质量冲突条目。 | all |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fully explains the tool's operation: it is an automated cross-validation, read-only in nature (returns results), not a compatibility ruling, and it identifies unverifiable entries and gaps. It also states the intended follow-up (manual evidence completion), providing rich context beyond a simple 'returns audit results'.
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 consists of three sentences, each adding valuable information: what it returns, what it is not, and what it is for. While not as terse as a two-sentence ideal, every sentence earns its place and there is no redundancy.
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 tool with a single optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main output categories (verifiable, unverifiable, gaps, coverage) and clarifies the non-goal (compatibility ruling). It lacks explicit detail about the exact report structure or response format, but this is not critical given the simple parameter and the thorough narrative description.
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 already provides a 100% documented parameter with an enum and default ('scope: all/conflicts'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no specific parameter-level semantics beyond the overall purpose, but that is acceptable given the schema coverage is complete.
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 cross-validation results between standard registration forms and entity declarations, specifying what it verifies (mechanical/bus declarations) and what it indicates (gaps, coverage). It explicitly distinguishes itself from compatibility checks by stating 'not a compatibility ruling', which separates it from siblings like bom_compatibility_check and check_compatibility.
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 provides clear context for use: it is a data quality self-check, not a compatibility ruling, and its purpose is to flag entries with questionable provenance for manual evidence completion. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools to use instead (e.g., check_compatibility), leaving the when-not-to-use partially implied.
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.
多个工具处理重叠的任务：check_compatibility、review_compatibility 和 bom_compatibility_check 都涉及兼容性验证，其中前两个尤其相似，第二个使用了与第一个相同的引擎，可能是多余的。此外，search_components 和 semantic_search 重叠但具有不同机制。虽然这些描述有所澄清，但代理仍可能选择错误工具（例如，当简单检查就足够时使用了 review_compatibility）。
大多数名称遵循 verb_noun 模式（get_component_detail、search_components、review_compatibility），但有几个偏差：semantic_search 是 adjective_verb 而非 search_semantic，而 bom_compatibility_check 将操作放在最后，与 check_bom_compatibility 相反。模式的不一致性削弱了可预测性。
使用 9 个工具，组件覆盖了搜索、详情、参数语义、标准审计、推荐以及兼容性检查的多个变体——表面上足够广，但没有膨胀。每个工具针对不同的检索或分析需求，使其合理且可管理。
该表面涵盖了该领域的大部分关键功能：搜索、详情、语义标准化、标准审计、推荐以及通过三种模式进行的兼容性检查。缺失 CRUD 操作可能表明它是一个只读库，但没有任何接口来创建或更新部件，这限制了对数据库的管理。总体而言，对于查询和验证，覆盖范围相当完整，仅有边缘缺口。