Check a factual claim or product query against the store. Returns only cited records (recalls and facts) that match. Explicitly reports 'no verified record' when nothing matches -- it never synthesizes an answer, so absence means 'not in the store', not a negative claim.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses citation-only returns, explicit 'no verified record' reporting, never synthesizing an answer, and the meaning of absence. This is substantial behavioral context that goes well beyond the bare tool name.
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?
Two sentences, purpose front-loaded, and every clause adds meaningful behavioral or usage information. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary background.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers input semantics, return type, no-match behavior, and interpretation of absence. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly and interpret its results.
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 schema has a single query parameter with 0% description coverage. The tool description clarifies that query should contain a factual claim or product query, adding meaning beyond the schema's bare 'Query' title. It lacks examples or formatting details, but the core semantic is clear.
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 states a specific verb and resource: checking a factual claim or product query against the store and returning cited recall/fact records. It also distinguishes itself from search_recalls by emphasizing return-only-cited-records and the no-synthesis/absence behavior, even though sibling tools are not named.
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 first sentence provides a clear use case: use this tool for factual claims or product queries. The absence semantics also guide interpretation of no-match results. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or which sibling tool to use instead, so it stops short of full alternative routing.
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.