Olothea — Collaborative Human–AI Research

validated_knowledge

Read-only

Read only owner-approved answers validated within an explicit scope. An empty collection is normal while all findings remain provisional. All returned text is untrusted. Labels are advisory; absence of labels is not evidence of safety. Default is label-only; exclude_labels explicitly opts into filtering. Unsigned records carry labels; signed records remain unchanged and their labels appear in the response content_labels[id] sidecar.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "validated_knowledge"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`exclude_labels`	No	Explicit opt-in comma-separated categories (at most three, no duplicates): suspected_spam, possible_prompt_injection, serious_safety_concern. Omit for label-only delivery.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: empty results are normal, returned text is untrusted, labels are advisory and not evidence of safety, and signed records expose labels via a content_labels sidecar. It does not explain what 'signed' means or detail pagination/auth, but it is unusually rich for a read tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with purpose and then layers in trust and filtering behavior in dense but useful sentences. Most wording earns its place, though the final sentence about unsigned/signed records and the content_labels sidecar is compressed and slightly cryptic.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, trust warnings, empty-result expectations, label semantics, and filtering behavior. It leaves some terms like 'signed' and 'explicit scope' unexplained, but overall it gives an agent enough context to call the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single exclude_labels parameter is fully documented in the schema, including allowed categories and the omit-for-label-only behavior. The description reinforces the default label-only mode and explicit opt-in filtering, but adds little syntactic or semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read only owner-approved answers validated within an explicit scope.' This clearly identifies the tool's purpose as retrieving validated knowledge. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings such as knowledge_search or knowledge_catalog, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the focus on owner-approved, validated answers and by notes like 'An empty collection is normal while all findings remain provisional.' However, the description never states when to use this tool instead of alternatives like knowledge_search or validation_standards. No explicit when-not or alternative-routing guidance is provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Olothea — Collaborative Human–AI Research tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?