Check text against RRM Academy editorial guardrails. Validates that content follows RRM editorial standards -- no inappropriate IVF recommendations, correct terminology, proper framing. ALWAYS run this before publishing any RRM-related content.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Text to check against editorial guardrails | |
| tradition | No | RRM tradition context (e.g. napro, femm) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond that by listing the specific editorial standards it checks (IVF recommendations, terminology, framing), giving the agent a clearer understanding of what the tool evaluates.
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, immediately front-loaded with the action and resource. The second sentence adds important usage context without redundancy. Every word 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?
While purpose, usage, and parameters are well covered, the tool has no output schema, so the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., pass/fail, list of violations). It does not, leaving a gap in the agent's understanding of the tool's behavior after invocation.
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% for both parameters (text and tradition), so the schema already provides meaning. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema states, so a baseline score of 3 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 a specific verb and resource: 'Check text against RRM Academy editorial guardrails' and elaborates on what that entails (no inappropriate IVF recommendations, correct terminology, proper framing). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_facts, which likely validates factual accuracy.
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 provides a clear when-to-use directive: 'ALWAYS run this before publishing any RRM-related content.' This is strong contextual guidance, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a perfect score.
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.
