hypothesis_rankRank cheap natural hypotheses from a free-text sighting. No origin claim.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| description | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| next | No | ||
| ranked | No | ||
| citations | Yes | ||
| provenance | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "citations",
+ "provenance"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and no destructive behavior. The description adds context with 'No origin claim,' which is a behavioral trait beyond the annotations. However, it does not elaborate on the ranking process, limits, or any side effects, so the added value is minimal.
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 extremely concise with two sentences, delivering the core purpose and a key constraint without any wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy 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?
Given the low complexity (one parameter, no enums, annotations covering safety, and an output schema assumed to describe return values), the description is minimally sufficient. However, it lacks details on the ranking algorithm, number of hypotheses, or input constraints, so it could be more complete.
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% for the single 'description' parameter. The tool description clarifies that the input is a 'free-text sighting,' which adds meaning beyond the bare schema type. This is adequate but not extensive, as it does not specify format, length, or example content.
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 it ranks natural hypotheses from a free-text sighting, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'identify' or 'object_lookup' by focusing on ranking hypotheses rather than identification. However, the phrase 'cheap natural hypotheses' is somewhat jargon and could be clearer.
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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions 'No origin claim,' which hints at a scope but does not clarify when to prefer this over siblings like 'identify' or 'nearby_cases.' No when-not or alternative tools are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.