Retrieve index cites for a named incident or CVE (e.g. CVE-2018-17144). Same search page as search. Empty if the index has no passage.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | CVE id or incident name. | |
| snapshot | No | If true, persist this result as a dated snapshot. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / snapshotAdded value: +{
+ "description": "If true, persist this result as a dated snapshot.",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish that the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful non-obvious context: it returns empty when the index has no passage, and it behaves like the search page. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
Two sentences with no filler; the core action and scope appear first, followed by useful behavior and empty-result semantics. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
For a simple read-only retrieval tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers the key edge case (empty result) and identifies the relation to search. It does not detail the cite output format, but given the simplicity this is a minor gap.
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 100%, so the description does not need to compensate. It still adds value by giving a concrete CVE example and clarifying that query accepts incident names or CVE IDs, but the snapshot parameter is left entirely to the schema.
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 uses a specific verb ('retrieve') and resource ('index cites') and clearly scopes the tool to named incidents or CVEs with a concrete example. It references the search sibling but does not explicitly state the differentiating behavior, so it falls just short of full differentiation.
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 entity scoping ('named incident or CVE') implies when to use the tool, and 'same search page as search' hints at shared behavior. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over search or other siblings, and no when-not-to-use conditions.
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.