Resolve a real-world capability request. Search the official MCP Registry, actively validate public candidate MCP tool surfaces, then fall back to live web search when native coverage is weak or absent. Weak Registry matches never suppress capability-gap telemetry.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task | Yes | What the principal agent wants done | |
| budget | No | ||
| currency | No | ||
| deadline | No | ||
| location | No | ||
| telemetry | No | aggregate_only | |
| categoryHint | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently describes the internal workflow: searching the Registry, actively validating candidate surfaces, falling back to live web search, and preserving capability-gap telemetry even for weak matches. This gives a meaningful view of the tool's behavior beyond just 'resolves requests', though it omits details like output format or failure modes.
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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, then explains the process and telemetry behavior in two additional sentences. Every sentence adds meaningful detail without redundancy, though it could arguably be streamlined. The structure is effective for quick scanning.
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 tool is moderately complex with seven parameters and no output schema, yet the description does not explain how parameters like budget, deadline, location, or categoryHint affect resolution behavior. It provides a good high-level workflow but is not complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly with all relevant context – particularly expected inputs and outputs.
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 only 14%, and the description does not compensate for the undocumented parameters. Only 'task' is described in the schema; budget, currency, deadline, location, telemetry, and categoryHint receive no semantic explanation in either the description or the schema. The description's general mention of 'real-world capability request' vaguely implies some context but provides no concrete guidance for these six parameters.
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 clearly identifies the tool's purpose: resolving real-world capability requests through a multi-step search process. It goes beyond the generic verb 'resolve' by specifying the MCP Registry search, validation, and web search fallback, which distinguishes it from vaguer tools. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like report_outcome or submit_mandate.
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 this tool are any 'real-world capability request' and specifies a fallback strategy ('when native coverage is weak or absent'). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so the guidance is contextually implied but not comparative.
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.
Each tool addresses a distinct phase of the capability lifecycle: submit_mandate captures demand, resolve fulfills it, and report_outcome provides feedback. There is no functional overlap or ambiguity between them.
The names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case: submit_mandate, report_outcome, and resolve. Though 'resolve' is a bare verb, it is the core action and fits the established style.
Three tools is an appropriate, minimal set for the server's purpose—covering the complete flow of demand, resolution, and feedback without unnecessary bloat or missing essentials.
The lifecycle is logically complete: submit a mandate, resolve it, and report the outcome. Minor gaps include lack of retrieval or listing for mandates/outcomes, but these are not critical given the server's telemetry-focused design.