Record a patent reference numeral as a node.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | Yes | Patent reference numeral, e.g. 610. | |
| name | Yes | Element name from the reference-numeral schedule. | |
| npub | No | ||
| figures | Yes | Figures the element appears in, e.g. '5' or '1,4'. | |
| dpop_token | No | ||
| claim_family | Yes | Claim family, e.g. 'Nostr Identity & Credential Exchange'. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. 'Record' implies a write operation, but it does not specify if this is an insert or update, idempotency, authentication requirements, side effects, or response format. This is minimal disclosure for a mutation 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 extremely concise (7 words) and front-loaded with the action verb 'Record'. Every word contributes meaning with no redundancy. For a simple tool, this efficiency is commendable.
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?
Given the tool has 6 parameters (4 required), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what a 'patent reference numeral' or 'node' means, nor does it provide context on error handling, return values, or typical usage. The agent would lack critical information to invoke it confidently.
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 information about parameters beyond what the input schema already provides. With 67% schema description coverage, the description should compensate for the three undocumented parameters (npub, dpop_token, and possibly others), but it fails to do so.
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 'Record a patent reference numeral as a node.' clearly states the action (record/upsert), the resource (patent reference numeral), and the outcome (as a node). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'cypher_explain_patent_element' or 'cypher_list_patent_elements', which have different purposes.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, conditions, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate or inappropriate. Given the many sibling tools related to patents, this lack of guidance hinders correct selection.
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.