research_networkCross-product metadata, clocks, rights, next steps. Follow next_offset. Unavailable: retrieval/contract/size failure. Local counts: market_corpus_context. No shared score or authority.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Set for full metadata; omission returns 2 compact rows. | |
| topic | No | Catalog topic, not a free-text query. | all |
| offset | No | Zero-based page start; follow next_offset. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionAdded value: +"Set for full metadata; omission returns 2 compact rows."Input schema / properties / offset / descriptionAdded value: +"Zero-based page start; follow next_offset."Input schema / properties / topic / descriptionAdded value: +"Catalog topic, not a free-text query."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds pagination behavior and mentions unavailable failure cases, plus 'No shared score or authority', but these points are terse and only partially explained.
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 definition is very short and front-loaded with no filler. However, the fragmentary phrasing and undefined terms make it less structurally clear than a concise but complete sentence would be.
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?
There is no output schema, and the description does not explain what 'clocks', 'rights', 'next steps', 'next_offset', or the failure modes mean in the returned data. For a read-only listing tool with important output expectations, this leaves the agent with significant ambiguity.
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 100%, and all three parameters are documented in the input schema. The description's 'Follow next_offset' merely echoes the offset schema description and adds no new meaning for limit or topic, so baseline 3 applies.
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 does not state a clear verb or resource; 'Cross-product metadata, clocks, rights, next steps' is an opaque noun list. It gives some output-related concepts but does not distinguish this tool from its many siblings in a usable way.
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 only concrete routing hint is 'Local counts: market_corpus_context', which points to a sibling for one case. It never says when to call research_network versus alternatives, and 'Follow next_offset' is pagination mechanics rather than usage guidance.
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.