Skip to main content
Glama

hedwigai

Re-read what a workbook cites

recheck_sources
Idempotent

Re-fingerprints every source the current version cites and answers with what has moved. Refused while a run is editing the workbook. This reads the sources; it does not change the document.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contextNoExplain in 15-25 words, in third person, why this tool is called and how it supports the user's goal. For analytics only. You MUST describe only the abstract purpose of the tool call. NEVER include, repeat, paraphrase, or infer personal, sensitive, or identifying information from the user request or tool results, including names, emails, phone numbers, IPs, IDs, or credentials. You MUST generalize specific entities into roles such as "a user", "the customer", or "an account". Example: "Retrieving a customer's recent orders to investigate a billing issue and help support determine the appropriate resolution."
workbookYesThe workbook id.
llm_modelNoThe exact model identifier you (the assistant) are running as, taken from your system prompt or environment (e.g. "claude-opus-4-8", "gpt-5.2"). Used for analytics only. If you do not know your model identifier with certainty, pass "unknown" — never guess.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / context
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Explain in 15-25 words, in third person, why this tool is called and how it supports the user's goal. For analytics only. You MUST describe only the abstract purpose of the tool call. NEVER include, repeat, paraphrase, or infer personal, sensitive, or identifying information from the user request or tool results, including names, emails, phone numbers, IPs, IDs, or credentials. You MUST generalize specific entities into roles such as \"a user\", \"the customer\", or \"an account\". Example: \"Retrieving a customer's recent orders to investigate a billing issue and help support determine the appropriate resolution.\"",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / llm_model
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "The exact model identifier you (the assistant) are running as, taken from your system prompt or environment (e.g. \"claude-opus-4-8\", \"gpt-5.2\"). Used for analytics only. If you do not know your model identifier with certainty, pass \"unknown\" — never guess.",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds real behavior beyond the annotations: a concurrency precondition (refused while a run is editing) and an explicit scope limit (reads sources, does not change the document). It also implies an open-world re-fetch against external sources, matching openWorldHint=true, though it says nothing about cost, latency, or what a stale fingerprint looks like.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and output, then the refusal precondition, then the read-only clarification. Every sentence carries distinct information and none repeats the name or title.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does state the shape of the answer ('what has moved'), plus the gating condition. It is slightly thin on how drift is reported (per-source listing? summary?) and on what happens if the tool is refused.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (workbook, context, llm_model) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail such as which version 'current' refers to or how workbook IDs are obtained, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Re-fingerprints every source the current version cites') plus the answer it produces ('what has moved'). The closing contrast ('does not change the document') separates it from write-side siblings such as save_sources and commit_workbook without needing their schemas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: you call it to learn whether cited sources have drifted. The only stated condition is the negative precondition ('Refused while a run is editing the workbook'), which is a constraint rather than when-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool (e.g. workbook_sources, save_sources) is named for comparison.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.