Read the gap register — what is still uncertain or unresolved in the pack
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| part | No | Which part to return when the document is delivered in several parts. Omit for part 1; the response says how many there are. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / partAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Which part to return when the document is delivered in several parts. Omit for part 1; the response says how many there are.",
+ "minimum": 1,
+ "type": "integer"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — no mention of pagination, return format, or whether the register is a fixed snapshot versus live state.
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?
A single tight sentence fragment with the core action ('Read the gap register') front-loaded and the clarifying gloss immediately after. No waste.
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 simple, read-only, single-optional-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essentials. The main gap is that 'the pack' and the register's structure are left as unexplained jargon an agent must guess at.
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 100%, so the single 'part' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the omit-for-part-1 default and the multi-part behavior. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (Read) and resource (the gap register), then glosses the resource as 'what is still uncertain or unresolved in the pack.' Clear enough to know what it returns, but it offers no differentiation from siblings like tide_doctor or tide_list, and 'the pack' is undefined domain jargon.
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?
There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus alternatives such as tide_list or tide_doctor, nor any prerequisites or context. Usage is only inferable from the resource name, not from explicit guidance.
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.