Search canonical priors by from/predicate/to. Empty until PRN-021 synthesis engine ships.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| predicate | No | ||
| to_construct_id | No | ||
| from_construct_id | No | ||
| min_freshness_score | No | ||
| min_informativeness | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | No | ||
| total | No | ||
| matches | Yes | ||
| resolved_construct_ids | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / from_construct_idAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / to_construct_idAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / properties / resolved_construct_idsAdded value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "propertyNames": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description usefully discloses that the tool currently returns nothing until the PRN-021 synthesis engine ships, which is important behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It does not contradict annotations and adds real operational knowledge.
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 short sentences: the first front-loads the action and primary filters; the second adds a critical availability caveat. No wasted words, and the structure is easy for an agent to parse.
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 empty-until-PRN-021 warning is valuable and makes the current state clear. However, with 8 optional parameters and no schema descriptions, an agent lacks enough detail to construct meaningful queries once the engine ships, especially for freshness and informativeness filters.
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 should compensate for the 8 parameters. It only names from, predicate, and to, leaving limit, construct IDs, min_freshness_score, and min_informativeness unexplained. This is a meaningful 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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('canonical priors') and names the key triple dimensions from/predicate/to. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling canonical_priors.lookup, but the search scope is clear enough.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus canonical_priors.lookup or the many other search siblings. The statement about being empty until PRN-021 is a status warning, not usage guidance; no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.