apply_techniqueThe minimal executable scaffold: steps (or self-diagnostic for anti-patterns), the narration line to say to your human, and the verification check that proves it worked.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Technique id to apply |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions 'executable scaffold' and components (steps, narration, verification), but fails to state if it's destructive, requires auth, or produces output. Users cannot infer side effects or return behavior.
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?
Single sentence, no redundancy. However, the phrasing 'minimal executable scaffold' is somewhat jargon-heavy, but still compact.
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?
Tool is simple with one parameter, but lack of output schema means return format is not described. For an execution tool, more completeness about what the human or agent should expect would improve context.
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 covers the single 'id' parameter fully (description provided), and the description doesn't add additional semantics beyond the schema, so baseline score is appropriate.
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 the tool applies a technique identified by id, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_technique (retrieval) or find_technique (search). The title 'Run a technique now' reinforces the action.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. The description implies it's for execution, but doesn't set expectations for when not to use it (e.g., for just reading technique details).
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 has a distinct purpose: listing categories, classifying intent, finding/getting technique details, and applying a technique. There is no overlap, and descriptions clearly differentiate them.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., apply_technique, list_categories). The naming is uniform and predictable.
With 5 tools, the server is well-scoped for its focus on technique selection and application. Each tool serves a necessary step in the workflow without unnecessary bloat.
The tool surface covers the full workflow: browsing categories, classifying intent, retrieving technique details, and applying techniques. There are no obvious gaps for an agent using this server.