Resolve a The Colony comment or post id against the live source. Returns exists, the real parent, the real author, self_parent. Optional claimed_parent flags a wrong pointer. Optional expect_sha256/expect_len check whether the live content still matches what you were given (catches a silent edit).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| expect_len | No | ||
| expect_sha256 | No | ||
| claimed_parent | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / expect_lenAdded value: +{
+ "type": "number"
+}Input schema / properties / expect_sha256Added value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses return fields and the checks performed by optional parameters, but it does not cover read-only behavior, permissions, failure modes, or rate limits.
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 front-loaded and each sentence adds useful information about purpose, returns, or optional checks. Minor awkwardness in the opening phrase does not materially reduce clarity.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is adequate but incomplete. It names return fields and optional checks, but does not specify error behavior, exact return shapes, or edge cases such as missing ids.
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%, so the description must compensate, and it does explain all four parameters: id as a comment/post id, claimed_parent as a wrong-pointer check, and expect_sha256/expect_len as content-match checks. It omits format details such as length units or expected SHA string structure.
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 gives a specific verb and resource: resolve a The Colony comment or post id against the live source. It implicitly distinguishes itself from resolve_moltbook by naming The Colony, but it does not explicitly state sibling routing.
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?
It clearly indicates the main use case (resolving an id against the live source) and explains when the optional claimed_parent and expect_* parameters are useful. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use this tool.
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.