get_methodologyThe measurement, the comparability rules that decide when a gap may be stated at all, the capture expiry, what this board deliberately does not cover, and the standing commitment if you reproduce a row and get a different answer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does reveal content boundaries ('what this board deliberately does not cover') and a commitment about reproducing rows, which is useful context. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, idempotent, or any error behavior.
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 comma-separated list of five items, which is concise but reads as a fragment rather than a complete sentence. It front-loads the most important aspects but lacks a clear structured introduction.
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 zero-parameter getter with no output schema, the description gives a good overview of content but does not specify the return format (e.g., text, structured object) or any usage context. This is a notable gap for an agent deciding whether and how to use it.
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?
With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but none is needed since the schema has no properties.
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 indicates the tool provides methodology information, listing specific topics like measurement, comparability rules, and limitations. However, it lacks an explicit verb+resource statement like 'Returns the methodology document,' relying on the tool name and title for clarity.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_row or list_rows. The description does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or specific conditions that would prompt its use.
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.