Query grammar productions captured from the spec's <emu-grammar> blocks. { nonterminal } returns every production for that non-terminal (exact match); { contains } filters by RHS / name substring; neither lists all non-terminals + their production counts. include_sdo folds in SDO-attached productions (off by default).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| spec | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| edition | No | ||
| contains | No | ||
| include_sdo | No | ||
| nonterminal | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains the behavior for different parameter combinations and mentions the include_sdo parameter's effect. No destructive behavior is implied. Could add details about pagination or result size limits, but overall transparency is good for a query tool.
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?
Description is a single paragraph of three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then detailing parameter behaviors. No unnecessary words or repetition. Extremely concise while covering all key aspects of usage.
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 6 parameters, no required ones, and no output schema, the description is sufficient for basic usage but lacks details on output format and the remaining parameters (spec, edition, limit). It does not describe what the returned data looks like (e.g., list of strings, objects). Adequate but could be more complete.
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?
Description explains nonterminal, contains, and include_sdo, which are the core filtering parameters. However, spec (enum: 262,402), edition, and limit are not explained. With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates but leaves ambiguity for some parameters. Limit and edition are likely intuitive but not explicitly clarified.
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 clearly states verb 'Query' and resource 'grammar productions from spec's <emu-grammar> blocks.' It explains three behaviors: exact match via nonterminal, substring filter via contains, and listing all non-terminals with counts when neither is provided. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like spec.search or spec.tables.
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?
Explicitly describes when to use nonterminal vs contains, and what happens when neither is specified (lists all non-terminals with counts). Provides clear context for filtering. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives for full-text search, which would be helpful.
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.