Record where a symbol lives so future triage scopes its grep.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| npub | No | ||
| file_path | Yes | Repo-relative path of the file the symbol lives in (the grep scope). | |
| dpop_token | No | ||
| symbol_fqn | Yes | Fully-qualified name of the symbol just edited. | |
| verified_at_sha | Yes | Commit/PR sha the anchor was verified against (from git). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description must carry behavioral context. It states 'Record' (write operation) but does not disclose whether it overwrites existing anchors, auth requirements, rate limits, or side effects. This is insufficient for an agent.
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, efficient sentence with no fluff. It is appropriately front-loaded, but its brevity trades off completeness. Still, it earns its place.
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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the behavior for write operations, what happens on conflict, or the role of optional parameters. More context is needed for safe agent usage.
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 60% (3 of 5 parameters have descriptions in schema). The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameters. Parameters like npub and dpop_token are not explained, leaving gaps that the schema does not fill.
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 'Record where a symbol lives so future triage scopes its grep,' which is a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes the tool's purpose from siblings like cypher_index_symbol or cypher_symbol_provenance by focusing on anchoring a symbol's location for grep scoping.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage when recording a symbol's location, but no context on prerequisites, conflicts, or preferred scenarios compared 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.