List TC39 proposals from the static index (tc39/proposals). Filter by spec ('262'|'402'), stage ('0'|'1'|'2'|'2.7'|'3'|'finished'|'inactive'|'active'), champion (substring), or contains (name/slug substring).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| spec | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| stage | No | ||
| champion | No | ||
| contains | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior thoroughly. It only mentions a 'static index', hinting at read-only behavior, but does not explicitly state non-destructiveness, auth requirements, or rate limits. The absence of annotation_contradiction means no contradiction, but transparency is insufficient.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loads the core action, and includes all essential information without redundancy. Every word serves a purpose.
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?
The description is adequate for a simple listing tool but lacks details on return format, pagination, or ordering. The limit parameter is not explained, which is a gap given the absence of an output schema.
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 the description must compensate. It explains four of five parameters (spec, stage, champion, contains) with example values, but misses the limit parameter entirely. This adds meaning beyond the schema's raw property definitions.
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 clearly states it lists TC39 proposals from a specific static index (tc39/proposals), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like proposal.get (single proposal) and clause.list (clauses). The verb 'List' and resource specification are precise.
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 description explains the filtering options but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies a browsing use case but lacks guidance on when not to use it, such as when a specific proposal is needed (use proposal.get).
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.