Get machine-readable instructions for adding a new part to the registry (file layout, metadata schema, quality gates, PR process). Use when a part is missing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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. It clarifies that the tool only provides instructions ('Get machine-readable instructions'), implying a read-only operation, and does not actually add a part. This makes the tool's behavior transparent, though it could more explicitly state its read-only nature.
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 entire description is a single sentence that front-loads the main action and purpose. It packs the content areas and usage cue into minimal words without unnecessary elaboration.
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, no-output-schema tool, the description is complete: it states the purpose, content, and when to use it. It is simple enough that nothing major is missing.
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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. The description does not need to add parameter-level detail, and the baseline of 4 is appropriate.
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 the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'machine-readable instructions for adding a new part to the registry,' and enumerates the content areas (file layout, metadata schema, quality gates, PR process). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_part and request_part, as it pertains to contributing rather than retrieving or requesting.
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 explicitly states 'Use when a part is missing,' providing a clear context for when the tool should be invoked. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, such as when to use request_part instead, so it falls short of the top score.
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 serves a distinct action in the part lifecycle: discovery (list, search, get), acquisition (request, submit), guidance (how_to_contribute), and feedback (report_feedback). No two tools overlap in purpose, and descriptions clearly indicates when to use each.
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_part, list_parts, search_parts, request_part, submit_part, report_feedback). The exception is how_to_contribute, which breaks the pattern but remains readable and clear.
Seven tools is well-scoped for a component registry, covering discovery, contribution, and feedback without redundancy or bloat. Each tool earns its place in the workflow.
The toolset fully covers the core domain: searching and retrieving parts, handling missing parts via parametric generation or user submission, and recording real-world feedback. The lack of update/delete tools is appropriate for a CI-promoted registry, and feedback is tied to parts via the public GitHub system.