Self-description of this MCP server: package name + version, per-snapshot pin metadata (sha, fetched_at, biblio_commit, clause_count) for every supported (spec, edition), plus test262 + proposals index headers when present.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It clearly states what information is returned, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state idempotency or lack of side effects, which would be helpful.
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?
Single sentence is compact but somewhat dense, listing multiple items. Could be split into bullet points for readability, but still effective.
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?
Given no output schema and simple tool, description covers all necessary information: what is returned (package name+version, pin metadata, headers). Missing format details but acceptable for an about tool.
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?
No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). Description adds no parameter info because none is needed. It focuses on output, which is appropriate for a parameterless tool.
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 uses specific verb 'self-description' and clearly defines the resource: package info, pin metadata for each spec/edition, and index headers. It distinguishes from sibling tools like clause.get or proposal.list by focusing on server metadata.
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?
Description implies use for introspection, but lacks explicit context on when to use this vs alternatives. Sibling tool names like spec.snapshots suggest more detailed snapshot info, so 'about' is clearly the overview. A note like 'Use this to discover available specs and editions' would improve clarity.
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.