compatibility_lookupReturn the source-backed ResolveMesh compatibility result for one allowlisted client and hosted-tool pair.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tool | Yes | ||
| client | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: 'source-backed' implies data provenance, and 'allowlisted' suggests access restrictions. No contradictions 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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the core action and scope. No wasted words; every part 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?
Given two simple enum parameters and safety annotations, the description covers the essential inputs and purpose. It adds 'source-backed' and 'allowlisted' context. Could briefly mention return format, but overall adequate for the simplicity.
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 coverage is 0%, but both parameters are enums with self-explanatory values (e.g., 'github', 'chatgpt-web'). The description confirms 'allowlisted client' and 'hosted-tool pair', adding little beyond what the enums convey. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 'Return the source-backed ResolveMesh compatibility result for one allowlisted client and hosted-tool pair.' It uses a specific verb ('Return'), names the resource ('ResolveMesh compatibility result'), and clearly scopes to a single pair, distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'compatibility_changes'.
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 usage for a single client-tool pair but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'compatibility_changes'. No when-not-to-use or additional context about prerequisites is provided.
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.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one provides a paginated list of approved compatibility events, the other gives a specific lookup for a client-tool pair. No overlap.
Both tool names follow the consistent pattern 'compatibility_<verb>', using snake_case. 'changes' and 'lookup' are verbs that clearly indicate their actions.
With only 2 tools, the surface is minimal but appropriate for a niche domain like 'ResolveMesh Compatibility Intelligence'. It slightly underrepresents possible operations but remains reasonable.
The set covers key operations: retrieving recent changes and performing a single lookup. Minor gaps exist, such as bulk lookup or listing all supported pairs, but they are not critical for the core functionality.