get_palimpsest_bridgeReturn the official-only China aggregate shared with the Intelligence Commons, including disclosure and causal boundaries.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| $schema | Yes | ||
| dataAsOf | Yes | ||
| datasets | Yes | ||
| geography | Yes | ||
| artifactId | Yes | ||
| disclosure | Yes | ||
| exclusions | Yes | ||
| limitations | Yes | ||
| canonicalUrl | Yes | ||
| schemaVersion | Yes | ||
| interpretation | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the output includes 'disclosure and causal boundaries', which is more about content than behavior. It does not disclose any other behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, auth requirements, rate limits). Since annotations cover the main concerns and the description adds minimal behavioral context, a 3 is appropriate.
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 a single, well-constructed sentence of 14 words. It front-loads the key information (what is returned) and avoids any filler. Every word earns its place, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.
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 (no parameters) and the presence of an output schema (which the prompt states exempts the description from explaining return values), the description is complete. It clearly states what is returned, and the annotations cover safety. No critical information needed for correct invocation is missing.
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, and schema description coverage is trivially 100% (no parameters to document). The description therefore does not need to add parameter semantics. As per the calibration, 0 params yields a baseline of 4, since there is nothing to explain beyond what the schema already covers.
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 a specific verb ('Return') and a well-defined resource ('official-only China aggregate shared with the Intelligence Commons'), and further specifies the content boundaries ('disclosure and causal boundaries'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_palimpsest_bri_context or get_palimpsest_corridors, which presumably cover other aspects.
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 explicitly state when to use this tool versus sibling tools, nor does it mention alternatives or exclusions. The intended usage is implied by the resource name, but there is no explicit routing guidance. With a clear context but no exclusions, this fits the 'clear context, no exclusions' level at best, though the lack of explicit comparison suggests score 3.
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 are clearly distinct, but the three palimpsest endpoints (context, bridge, corridors) all return related official aggregates and demand careful reading to avoid mis-selection. get_newsroom, get_overview, and get_story are more separable, though their retrieval roles still slightly overlap.
Tool names follow a consistent get_<noun> snake_case pattern, and list_capabilities is a standard exception for MCP introspection. The palimpsest_* subnames are terse and somewhat obscure, but they do not break the overall convention.
Seven tools is well-scoped for an evidence explorer: each covers a meaningful retrieval or orientation function without redundancy. The count is neither thin nor bloated for the stated purpose.
The core read-only exploration surface is covered: overview aggregates, newsroom analyses, story dossiers, country-level corridors, and capability discovery. The main gap is the lack of a general search or filter tool for drugs, routes, or time periods, but agents can work around this with the provided curated endpoints.