find_articles_for_claimMatch an objection to common arguments and published articles. Returns the claim, the one-line answer, key points, and absolute URLs. [no key]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | ||
| limit | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | ||
| articles | Yes | ||
| arguments | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseOutput schema / properties / queryAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / requiredPrevious value: -[]New value: +[
+ "arguments",
+ "articles"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return field list and a cryptic '[no key]' note (presumably no auth/API key required), but explains nothing about the '(objection)' semantics of input text or any rate/limit 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?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by return contents. The trailing '[no key]' tag is cryptic and slightly wasteful, keeping it from a 5.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the annotations cover the safety profile. The remaining gap is the undocumented 'limit' parameter and the unexplained '[no key]' marker, plus no guidance on relationship to the many sibling article-retrieval tools.
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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It implies the required 'text' is an objection, which helps, but says nothing about the 'limit' parameter or the 1-500 character constraint on text. Partial compensation at best for a 2-param tool with no schema documentation.
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 gives a specific verb ('Match') and resource ('an objection to common arguments and published articles'), so an agent knows it maps a claim to supporting content. It stops short of differentiating itself from siblings like search_articles, related_articles, or get_common_argument, so a 4 rather than a 5.
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?
Usage is implied by 'Match an objection to...' – the agent can infer this is for turning a claim/objection into matching articles. However there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no named alternative among the many sibling article tools, leaving routing entirely to inference.
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.