Answer what contradicts a capability's assertions or guarding invariants.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Capability name. | |
| npub | No | ||
| as_at_ms | No | Valid-time point (epoch ms); 0 = now. Filters assertion/invariant valid_from/valid_to. | |
| dpop_token | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / as_at_msAdded value: +{
+ "default": 0,
+ "description": "Valid-time point (epoch ms); 0 = now. Filters assertion/invariant valid_from/valid_to.",
+ "type": "integer"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states what the tool answers. It does not disclose whether it is read-only, what it returns (e.g., list, boolean), whether it requires authentication, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a 4-parameter audit tool.
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 sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified. It is concise but lacks structure that would help an agent understand the tool's scope or parameters.
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?
This tool has no output schema, no annotations, and only 50% parameter coverage in the schema. The description does not explain return values, the meaning of 'contradicts', how to specify a capability, or the role of optional parameters like npub and dpop_token. Substantial contextual gaps remain.
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 50% (name and as_at_ms are documented; npub and dpop_token are not). The description adds no parameter-level information, so it does not compensate for the two undocumented parameters. It adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 uses a specific verb ('Answer') and identifies the resource ('what contradicts a capability's assertions or guarding invariants'), which differentiates it from sibling audit tools like cypher_audit_what_guards or cypher_audit_what_changed_since. However, 'what contradicts' is somewhat ambiguous—it could mean listing contradictions or checking a particular contradiction—but it still conveys the core intent.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus other audit tools, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites or alternatives. Usage is only implied by the tool's name and the generic phrasing.
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.