Retrieve BIP, GitHub, and mail cites for a proposal. Disposition is only what a cite heading or URL already says. Does not invent merged/rejected/stalled labels.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Proposal title, BIP number, or change description. | |
| 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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds a valuable behavioral limitation: 'Disposition is only what a cite heading or URL already says. Does not invent merged/rejected/stalled labels.' This goes beyond annotations and helps the agent trust results. It does not contradict 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?
The description is two sentences with zero filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the limitation is stated succinctly. Every word earns its place, and it is easy to scan.
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 retrieval tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core function and a key behavioral nuance. It does not describe the return format, but that is not required given the lack of an output schema. It is sufficiently complete for the agent to call it correctly.
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%, and both parameters (query and snapshot) are described in the schema. The description does not add additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, but it does not need to. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema's completeness.
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 states a specific verb (Retrieve), a specific resource (BIP, GitHub, and mail cites), and the scope (for a proposal). It distinguishes itself from sibling find_* tools by naming the unique source types, making it clear what this tool covers versus find_discourse, find_incident, 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 usage for proposal precedent citations, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or comparisons to siblings are given, so the agent must infer from the purpose. This is adequate but not explicit.
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.