Search only the 77 TrustCarry Protocol v0.3 author-affirmed research claims. These records are public under CC BY 4.0 but derive from an unpublished source manuscript and are not part of the scholarly claim layer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | 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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds useful context beyond that: the exact 77-record scope, CC BY 4.0 licensing, unpublished source manuscript, and exclusion from the scholarly claim layer. It does not describe result ranking or behavior, but the output schema covers the return shape.
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 carry distinct, non-redundant information. The scope is front-loaded first, then provenance and licensing details follow. No wasted words.
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 read-only search tool with two simple parameters, an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description provides all essential selection context: scope, provenance, licensing, and exclusions. Nothing necessary to invoke the tool correctly 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain query or limit. The query parameter is inferable from 'Search', but limit is left entirely to its name and default, so the description fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.
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?
Description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search only the 77 TrustCarry Protocol v0.3 author-affirmed research claims.' It draws a clear boundary against the scholarly claim layer, making it easy to distinguish from sibling search_claims.
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 phrase 'only' and the explicit statement that these records 'are not part of the scholarly claim layer' tell the agent when not to use this tool. It does not name the alternative tool for scholarly claims, but the context is clear enough for 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.
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.