Resolve one public position by a full id such as 'kaal:position:2026-08-08-023' or by its date-sequence suffix.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| position_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the position is 'public' and describes acceptable ID formats, but this is modest additional context. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
One concise sentence front-loaded with the action verb. It includes an example and a legitimate alternative input format without any fluff.
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 get-by-id tool with one parameter and an output schema present, the description is mostly complete. It explains the input format and public scope, though it does not mention what happens if the position is not found, a minor gap.
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 only defines position_id as a string. The description adds the exact ID format with an example and explains that a date-sequence suffix is also accepted, providing essential meaning beyond the schema. This is particularly valuable given 0% schema description coverage.
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 'Resolve' and names the resource 'public position', making it clear this tool fetches a single position by ID. It distinguishes itself from search siblings by focusing on direct resolution rather than searching.
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 context is clear: use this when you have a position ID (full id or suffix). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like search_positions or exclusions, so it misses the 'when-not-to-use' guidance that would earn a 5.
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 targets a distinct resource or action: overviews, specific claims/papers, searches by different granularities, citation help, and document verification. No two tools overlap in purpose.
All tool names use lowercase snake_case with clear verb-noun or noun-preposition patterns (e.g., get_claim, search_papers, claim_layer_overview). The naming is uniform and predictable.
With 11 tools, the set covers the core operations for exploring a scholarly corpus without being excessive. Each tool serves a clear and necessary purpose.
The tools provide comprehensive coverage for discovering, retrieving, and verifying content from the corpus: overviews, searches at paper/claim/post level, direct retrieval, and document verification. No obvious missing operations for the intended use case.