Independent owner-side QA for structured-cabling certification evidence. Reconciles expected cable IDs against contractor CSV exports and identifies missing, unexpected, retest, and test-limit issues for human review.
Scored across 3 tools
audit_certification_package and inspect_certification_package both involve certification packages, but their descriptions clearly separate schema/row inspection from evidence reconciliation and duplicate/retest checks. cablecert_service_info is obviously distinct as service metadata. The only minor risk is an agent confusing 'inspect' with 'audit' before reading descriptions.
Two tools follow a verb_noun pattern (audit_certification_package, inspect_certification_package), but cablecert_service_info is noun-led and lacks a verb. There is also inconsistency between the abbreviated 'cablecert' and the full 'certification' in other names. Names are readable but not uniformly patterned.
Three tools is minimal but reasonable for a narrowly focused QA/reconciliation service. Each tool has a distinct role: service info, inspection, and audit. The count feels slightly thin but not unjustified.
The domain appears to be certification-package QA, and the set covers schema inspection, package auditing, and service description. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit summary or reporting output, but the core workflow is supported without dead ends.
Deterministically reconcile expected Cable IDs against contractor certification CSV evidence. Also checks duplicate/retest lineage and an optional owner-supplied expected test limit. Returns exact exceptions with source-file/source-row provenance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| csv_text | Yes | ||
| source_file | No | contractor.csv | |
| expected_ids | Yes | ||
| expected_test_limit | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those: deterministic execution, duplicate/retest lineage checks, optional owner-supplied limits, and exact exceptions with source-file/source-row provenance. No contradiction exists.
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 dense sentences front-load the core reconcile action and follow with secondary checks and return characteristics. Every sentence adds value with no filler or redundancy.
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?
For a 4-parameter tool with strong annotations and an output schema, the description covers invocation behavior, selected checks, and provenance. The main gap is the lack of explicit guidance for distinguishing this tool from inspect_certification_package, which could complicate tool selection.
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 parameter meaning. It maps csv_text to 'contractor certification CSV evidence', expected_ids to 'expected Cable IDs', and expected_test_limit to 'owner-supplied expected test limit'. It does not mention source_file, but the parameter name and default make it reasonably self-explanatory.
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 ('deterministically reconcile'), a resource ('expected Cable IDs against contractor certification CSV evidence'), and adds secondary checks (duplicate/retest lineage, expected test limit). The core purpose is clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate the tool from the sibling inspect_certification_package.
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 an audit/reconciliation scenario but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over cablecert_service_info or inspect_certification_package. No alternatives, exclusions, or preconditions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Describe CableCert QA scope, supported input and safety boundary.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds contextual value by stating the tool will describe QA scope, supported input, and safety boundary, which hints at the content of its output. No contradiction with annotations; the description adds modest context beyond them but doesn't detail what the output format or depth will be.
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?
A single sentence with zero waste. The purpose verb is front-loaded and every word ('scope', 'supported input', 'safety boundary') carries meaning. Nothing is redundant or padded.
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?
For a zero-parameter informational tool with an output schema present, the description is essentially complete. An agent knows exactly what to expect: a description of QA scope, supported input, and safety boundary. The only minor gap is that the output schema exists but the description doesn't enumerate what it returns, though the output schema itself covers that.
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?
The tool has 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage, so there is nothing for the description to explain. With zero parameters, the baseline is 4 per the rubric, and the description appropriately says nothing about parameters since none exist.
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 clear purpose: describe the CableCert QA service's scope, supported input, and safety boundary. The verb 'describe' plus the specific resource makes the tool's informational nature obvious. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings (audit_certification_package, inspect_certification_package), but those are clearly different action verbs (audit/inspect) vs. describe, so distinction is implicit.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The intended usage is implied: an agent would call this before other CableCert tools to understand the QA scope and safety boundary. Sibling alternatives are not mentioned, so the agent must infer the differentiation from their names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Inspect a structured-cabling certification CSV export. Supply CSV text and a source filename. Detects known headers, capabilities and row count while preserving schema information.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| csv_text | Yes | ||
| source_file | No | contractor.csv |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it detects headers, capabilities, and row count, and 'preserves schema information', clarifying that parsing is non-mutating. It does not mention failure modes, but the safety profile is well covered by 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 three short sentences with no filler: purpose, input requirement, and behavior. The most important information is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.
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?
For a simple read-only inspection tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers the main invocation requirements and behavior. It is slightly incomplete only in not explaining when to choose this tool over the audit sibling.
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 only says 'Supply CSV text and a source filename', which largely restates the parameter names and does not explain expected CSV formatting, source_file's role, or that source_file is optional due to its default. Minimal semantic value is added.
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 ('Inspect'), a specific resource ('structured-cabling certification CSV export'), and what it does ('Detects known headers, capabilities and row count'). It clearly conveys the tool's task, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling audit_certification_package.
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 audit_certification_package or cablecert_service_info. It implies an inspection-oriented use case from the name and title, but never states conditions, exclusions, or preferred ordering such as 'inspect before audit'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
audit_certification_packagecablecert_service_infoinspect_certification_package
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.