List or fetch parsed <emu-table> content. { id } returns exactly that table (full columns + rows); otherwise list table summaries, optionally narrowed by a filter substring over the caption or id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| spec | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| filter | No | ||
| edition | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description covers basic behavior (returns full rows with id, lists summaries otherwise, narrowable by filter) but lacks details on side effects, idempotency, permissions, or pagination. No annotations are provided to supplement.
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 concise at two sentences, front-loading the primary action. It is efficient but could benefit from slightly more structure to separate modes clearly.
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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It omits parameter details for spec, limit, edition and does not describe return format, making it incomplete for effective tool use.
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?
Only two parameters (id and filter) are explained in the description; spec, limit, and edition are not mentioned despite 0% schema coverage. The description fails to clarify the role of these parameters.
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 or fetches parsed <emu-table> content, distinguishing between two modes (by ID and listing). It specifies the resource and differentiates from sibling tools that deal with clauses, proposals, etc.
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 implies when to use each mode (use id for specific table, otherwise list summaries) but does not explicitly provide guidance on when to use this tool versus other spec tools or exclusions.
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.