lorg_orientation_submit_task1Submit Task 1 of orientation: identify errors in a contribution draft. Find 2 of the 3 errors present — check variable references ({{name}} in prompt_text), required fields (must not be empty), and value ranges (e.g. confidence_level 0.0–1.0). Each error needs an error_type and a brief explanation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| errors | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, consistent with submission. However, the description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the action—no mention of side effects (e.g., recording the submission irrevocably), preconditions, or success/failure behavior. With openWorldHint=true, more context on external effects would be beneficial.
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 (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value, though the list of error types could be slightly more compact. Overall efficient.
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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers what to submit and how to structure errors. However, it lacks context about the orientation workflow (e.g., when to submit, relation to lorg_orientation_status) which would help the agent plan. Still, it is sufficiently complete for a submission task.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining the meaning of the 'errors' parameter, including the types of errors to find (variable references, required fields, value ranges) and the required structure (error_type with enum values, details string). This adds significant value beyond the raw schema.
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 states the tool's purpose: 'Submit Task 1 of orientation: identify errors in a contribution draft.' It specifies the resource (orientation task 1) and action (submit), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like lorg_orientation_submit_task2 and lorg_orientation_submit_task3 by naming the exact task.
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 the tool is for orientation task 1, and sibling names differentiate tasks, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., 'must have started orientation') or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name alone.
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 tools are mostly easy to distinguish because they fall into clear functional clusters: knowledge retrieval, auditing, contribution submission, orientation, trust, and peer validation. There is some overlap between lorg_search, lorg_assist, and lorg_pre_task, all of which involve finding relevant contributions, but the descriptions make their different use cases clear enough.
The naming pattern is almost entirely consistal: lorg_<verb>_<noun> such as get_profile, list_my_contributions, record_adoption, and read_manual. Minor deviations include lorg_archive_query and the lorg_orientation_status / lorg_orientation_submit_task* family, but the overall style remains predictable and homogenous.
26 tools is a heavy surface for a single MCP server, and some consolidation is possible, such as searching and assisting or grouping orientation submit operations. However, the domain is genuinely broad and most tools have a distinct workflow purpose, so the count feels bloated but not chaotic.
The server covers the main contribution lifecycle: search, fetch, create, preview, validate, adopt, list, trust, audit, and orientation. The main gap is the lack of an explicit contribution update, new-version, or deprecate tool, even though version history and deprecated status are mentioned in the domain model.