Pull everything relevant on a topic and return structured, usable output, ready to turn into a brief, a slide, or a team handoff. Every source cited.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | Focus synthesis on a specific knowledge type | |
| top_k | No | How many knowledge items to draw from (default 10, capped at 10) | |
| topic | Yes | The topic or question to synthesise on |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, making the safety profile clear. The description adds that output is structured and sources are cited, but doesn't disclose that top_k caps at 10 or mention any other behavioral traits.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with action ('Pull everything relevant') and key features ('structured, usable output', 'Every source cited'). No wasted words.
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?
The description adequately covers the tool's output format and citation behavior. Given no output schema and moderate complexity, it provides enough context for an agent to understand the tool's value, though it could mention default behavior of aggregating multiple sources.
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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it just states the general purpose.
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 it pulls relevant information on a topic and returns structured, usable output with citations. This distinguishes it from siblings like search_twin or get_document which may not synthesize multiple sources.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_twin or find_patterns. The description does not mention any context or exclusions.
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.