Trace the exact path that determines an AgentForce autonomous resolution event.
This is the $2/resolution billing path — what the agent must traverse correctly to resolve autonomously without human handoff.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is the billing path and that it relates to autonomous resolution without handoff, but does not mention whether it is read-only, what side effects exist, or what the output looks like. The description adds some context but lacks full behavioral details.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. It earns its place efficiently.
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 that there are no parameters and an output schema exists (though not shown), the description is relatively complete. However, it could briefly mention what the output contains to be fully self-contained, so a 4 is appropriate.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter-level semantics. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description is sufficient for a parameterless tool.
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 traces the resolution path for AgentForce autonomous billing events. It uses a specific verb and resource, but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like evaluate_trust_chain or verify_source, so a 4 is appropriate.
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 used to understand the billing path for autonomous resolution, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus sibling tools or when not to use it. This is adequate but not strong.
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.
Most tools serve clearly distinct roles: querying, searching, routing, and verification are separate concerns. However, query_ckg and get_prerequisites both return prerequisite information, which could cause an agent to select the wrong tool when a simple prerequisite list is needed. The descriptions do clarify the difference (generic traversal vs. full ordered chain), but some ambiguity remains.
The vast majority of tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern, such as evaluate_trust_chain, list_concepts, and route_query. The only exception is resolution_path, which is a noun phrase rather than a verb_noun, making it slightly less predictable. This is a minor deviation from an otherwise strong pattern.
With 10 tools, the server has a well-scoped surface area for a knowledge graph that requires discovery, traversal, routing, and audit capabilities. Each tool represents a distinct operation, and there are no redundant or unnecessary entries. This falls comfortably within the ideal range for a domain-specific server.
The toolset covers the full read-side lifecycle of the knowledge graph: discovery, traversal, path analysis, routing, and trust verification. It also includes specialized tools for benchmarking and source verification, which are unusual but valuable additions. No obvious critical gaps exist, such as missing search or traversal capabilities.