Resolve a source-side construct {name, definition?, variable_code?} against the canonical store. READ-ONLY — does not mutate. Uses meta-factory's matcher (name@0.9 / code@0.85 / definition@0.6).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| definition | No | ||
| variable_code | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | Yes | ||
| construct | Yes | ||
| confidence | No | ||
| match_type | 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 declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'READ-ONLY — does not mutate.' It adds meaningful behavioral detail about the matching algorithm and thresholds, which is beyond what annotations provide. 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 two sentences with no filler, front-loading the action and object first, then safety and matcher details. Every sentence earns its place and the structural cues make the optional parameters and read-only nature immediately visible.
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 provides the essential operational context: what is being resolved, against what store, which parameters matter, and with what matching thresholds. Since an output schema exists, return-value details are not required. The only notable gap is explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools, but the matcher semantics largely cover the intended use case.
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 compensate. It lists all three parameters in a structured form ({name, definition?, variable_code?}) and explains their role in matching, including specific similarity thresholds. This provides clear semantic meaning beyond the bare schema field names and types.
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 names a specific verb ('Resolve'), a resource ('source-side construct'), and the target ('canonical store'), which is clear enough to convey the core operation. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling lookup/search tools, but the mention of a fuzzy matcher with thresholds signals a distinct resolution behavior.
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 implies when to use the tool through the matching thresholds ('name@0.9 / code@0.85 / definition@0.6'), suggesting fuzzy resolution rather than exact lookup. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over constructs.lookup, constructs.search, or other siblings, nor does it provide exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.