resolve_signalThe state and meaning of a single ACM-68000 signal code. A CPG- profile code resolves to its ACM- twin; the response carries the resolved ACM- code.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | Signal code, e.g. ACM-451 or CPG-451 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / code / descriptionPrevious value: -"Signal code, e.g. ACM-451"New value: +"Signal code, e.g. ACM-451 or CPG-451"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it clearly states the core behavior: a CPG- profile code resolves to its ACM- twin and the response contains the resolved ACM- code. It does not cover unknown-code or error behavior, but for a simple read-style resolver the main contract is transparent.
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 short and front-loads the object being resolved, with no filler. The first sentence is a noun phrase rather than a complete sentence, which slightly hurts readability, but the second sentence carries the key behavioral detail 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?
With one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential input/output contract: single signal code in, resolved ACM- code out. It could specify the exact shape of the state/meaning payload or behavior when an ACM- code is passed directly, but these are minor for a simple resolver.
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 schema already fully documents the code parameter with examples, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by explaining that CPG- profile codes map to their ACM- twins, which clarifies the expected input and the direction of resolution.
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 title and description identify a specific operation—resolving one signal code—and the resource is a single ACM-68000 signal. It goes beyond a tautology by specifying the CPG- to ACM- mapping, which distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_signals.
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 CPG- to ACM- twin mapping implicitly tells an agent when to use this tool: given a profile code, obtain its canonical ACM- equivalent. However, it never names alternatives or states exclusions, leaving the selection logic to inference.
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.