Answer what sources a capability was derived from.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Capability name. | |
| npub | No | ||
| as_at_ms | No | Valid-time point (epoch ms); 0 = now. Filters assertion 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 valid_from/valid_to.",
+ "type": "integer"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says 'Answer' which implies a read-only query, but it does not disclose side-effect profile, auth requirements, or behavior for unknown capabilities. This is a significant gap for a tool with 4 parameters.
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 one clear sentence, front-loaded with the action and object, containing no fluff. It is concise and well-structured for its limited content, though the brevity leaves out important details.
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 tool with no output schema, no annotations, and 4 parameters, this description is too thin. It does not explain what 'sources' means, the return format, or the roles of the optional parameters. Sibling audit tools likely provide richer context, making this one incomplete.
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 description adds no meaning beyond the schema. It mentions 'capability,' but the schema already describes `name` as 'Capability name.' It does not explain `npub`, `as_at_ms`, or `dpop_token`. With 50% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate for the undocumented parameters.
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 clearly identifies the resource ('a capability') and the result ('what sources ... derived from'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like cypher_audit_what_changed_since (changes) and cypher_audit_what_contradicts (contradictions) by focusing on derivation origin.
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 guidance is given on when to use this tool vs the many audit siblings. It does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the description's purpose, which is insufficient for a tool family with overlapping concerns.
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.