List parsed spec clauses with optional filters (kind, section prefix, has_algorithm). spec selects '262' or '402'. at: '<sha>' queries a historical main snapshot.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| at | No | ||
| kind | No | ||
| spec | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| edition | No | ||
| section | No | ||
| has_algorithm | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Clearly describes listing behavior, filters, and historical querying. No mention of destructive actions or permissions, which is acceptable for a read-only listing.
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 concise sentences with no waste. All information is front-loaded and directly relevant.
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?
With 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers core functionality and key filters. Lacks detail on limit and edition, but overall sufficient for invocation.
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%, so description compensates by explaining spec, at, and filter parameters (kind, section, has_algorithm). However, limit and edition are not explained, leaving gaps.
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?
Clearly states it lists parsed spec clauses with optional filters (kind, section, has_algorithm). Differentiates from siblings by specifying the listing nature and historical snapshot querying capability.
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?
Provides context for filters and spec selection but lacks explicit when-to-use or alternatives guidance. Implies usage through examples but does not exclude cases.
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 function: clause operations vs. proposal queries vs. spec utilities vs. test262 search. Even the two search tools have clear differences (single vs. cross-spec).
All tools follow a consistent `domain.action` pattern using lowercase and snake_case for the action (e.g., `clause.get`, `spec.global_search`, `test262.search`). No mixing of conventions.
17 tools is appropriate for a comprehensive TC39 spec browser. Each tool serves a specific need without redundancy, covering clauses, proposals, grammar, symbols, tables, and test262.
The toolset covers the full lifecycle of exploring TC39 specifications: retrieving clauses, searching, cross-referencing, diffing editions, inspecting grammar and symbols, and querying proposals and test262.