Lookup a synthesized Bayesian prior by id OR (from_construct_id, predicate, to_construct_id). Empty until PRN-021 synthesis engine ships.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| predicate | No | ||
| sample_culture | No | ||
| to_construct_id | No | ||
| from_construct_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | No | ||
| found | Yes | ||
| prior | Yes | ||
| reason | No | ||
| unknown_construct_ids | No | ||
| resolved_construct_ids | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable non-obvious behavioral context: the tool is currently empty until a synthesis engine ships, and it accepts two distinct lookup key forms. It does not cover edge cases like both id and triple being supplied, but it goes beyond the annotations usefully.
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 one compact sentence that front-loads the operation and resource, then states the accepted lookup keys and the availability caveat. Every clause earns its place and there is no redundant restating of the tool name or schema.
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 covers the core lookup semantics and current empty state, and an output schema exists to handle return-value details. However, it leaves the sample_culture parameter unexplained and does not offer routing guidance toward canonical_priors.search for broader needs, making invocation guidance incomplete.
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%, so the description must carry the parameter-semantics burden. It usefully maps id and the from_construct_id/predicate/to_construct_id group into two lookup paths, but it completely omits sample_culture, which remains unexplained. The schema itself provides no descriptions, leaving a real 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 states a specific verb ('Lookup'), a specific resource ('synthesized Bayesian prior'), and the exact identifiers accepted: by id OR by a triple of from_construct_id, predicate, to_construct_id. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling search/list tools by signaling an exact-lookup operation.
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 gives clear guidance on when to use the tool: when you have a prior id or the exact (from_construct_id, predicate, to_construct_id) combination. It also provides the important caveat that it is currently empty until PRN-021 ships. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like canonical_priors.search or say when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.