Return the Knox MCP server self-description: operator, USPTO patent reference, jurisdiction, available tools, and links to the public AAM (Agent Audit and Management) documentation surface.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the tool 'Return' (implying read-only) and describes precisely what will be returned (operator, patent, jurisdiction, tools, links). This gives useful behavioral context beyond a simple tautology, though it does not mention side effects or error cases, which is acceptable for a read-only meta tool.
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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb 'Return' and immediately lists the specific content items. No fluff or redundant phrasing; every element adds value.
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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns and the nature of that information. It details all major components of the self-description, making it complete for the tool's simplicity.
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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately avoids mentioning parameters since there are none, and the semantic meaning of the tool is fully captured by describing the return value.
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 the specific verb 'Return' and clearly identifies the resource as 'the Knox MCP server self-description'. It also enumerates the contents (operator, patent reference, jurisdiction, available tools, and links), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that deal with anchoring, events, or health checks.
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 clearly implies usage context: use this tool to obtain server self-description and discover capabilities or documentation links. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the unique meta-purpose is obvious relative to the sibling tools, giving clear context without needing explicit when-not guidance.
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 are clearly distinct: anchoring, verifying, health, descriptor, and event taxonomy. However, anchor_event and anchor_mcp_tool_call overlap in that anchor_event accepts any event type including the MCP tool call event, though the latter provides structured convenience metadata. This creates minor potential for misselection.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with lowercase and underscores: anchor_*, get_*, list_*, verify_*. The verbs clearly indicate actions, and the pattern is uniform across the set.
Seven tools is well-scoped for a blockchain anchoring service. The count covers core operations, verification, health checks, and informational endpoints without bloat or redundancy.
The tool set fully covers the lifecycle: anchoring via multiple event types, verification by hash, health monitoring, descriptor access, and event taxonomy listing. Since anchoring is append-only, no update/delete operations are expected, and the surface is complete for the domain.