get_correctionsEvery time this board changed something it had stated about a named company, or changed a method rule, with the old value, the new one, the date and the rule that stops a repeat. Append only: entries are never edited or removed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well by stating the append-only property: 'entries are never edited or removed.' It also documents the content fields (old value, new one, date, rule), giving the agent a clear behavioral model beyond a simple getter.
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 brief, with two sentences. The first sentence is slightly convoluted but packs necessary detail; the second sentence is clear and direct. Overall it is efficient and front-loaded with the main purpose.
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?
For a no-parameter getter with no output schema, the description adequately explains the nature of the data (corrections log with specific fields) and the immutable behavior. It does not explicitly state the return format (e.g., a list of entries), but that is reasonably inferred from the description.
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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description adds context about what the log contains, which is relevant even though there are no parameters to document.
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 identifies the resource as a corrections log containing entries for every change to statements about a named company or method rules, with old/new values, date, and the preventing rule. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_board or get_right_of_reply, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'lists' to state the tool's action.
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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_board or get_methodology. The intended use is only implied by the resource description; there are no exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of the honesty index: the board summary, corrections log, methodology, right-of-reply records, individual row details, and roster listing. There is no overlap in purpose or output, making selection unambiguous.
All tools follow a consistent get_* or list_* prefix pattern, with clear, descriptive nouns indicating the resource. This is a uniform and predictable naming convention.
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose. Each tool covers a necessary piece of the index's surface area without redundancy or bloat.
The surface covers the full domain: a summary board, per-row details, roster lookup, methodology, corrections history, and right-of-reply mechanism. There are no obvious gaps for reading and understanding the index, and the append-only nature makes write tools unnecessary.