pull_harnessReturn archive files for a harness. Paid harnesses return payment requirements unless the Bearer token is entitled.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| owner | No | harnesses | |
| version | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| code | Yes | ||
| status | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by specifying that the tool returns archive files and that paid harnesses have conditional behavior based on authorization token. No contradiction with annotations.
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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value with no unnecessary 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?
Given that the input schema has no descriptions for three parameters, the description should explain what each parameter does, but it does not. It also omits mention of the default owner value or the idempotent behavior hinted by annotations. The output schema exists but is not described; however, that's acceptable since an output schema is present.
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 description coverage is 0%, meaning the input schema lacks parameter descriptions. The tool description does not explain the meaning or usage of the three parameters (name, owner, version), such as the default value for owner or the role of version. This is a critical gap.
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 archive files for a harness, using a specific verb ('return') and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'harness_detail' (which likely returns metadata) and 'pull_instructions'.
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 some context about paid harnesses requiring payment unless entitled, but does not give explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'fetch' or 'harness_detail'. No when-not or exclusion criteria are mentioned.
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 have distinct purposes, but there is some overlap among search variants (search, search_resources, search_harnesses) and between fetch and resource_detail, which could cause confusion.
Naming mostly follows a verb_noun pattern, but there are inconsistencies such as 'publish_markdown_to_harness' being longer and 'resource_use_instructions' having a different structure.
12 tools is appropriate for a registry server, covering search, fetch, publish, and pull operations without being overwhelming.
The tool set covers core operations (search, fetch, publish, pull) but lacks update and delete functionalities, which are minor gaps for a registry.