Detect inconsistencies across company name, domains, GitHub orgs, npm scopes, and Schema.org markup to diagnose entity data issues.
Diagnostic audit to detect inconsistencies across company name, domains, GitHub orgs, npm scopes, and Schema.org markup.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entity_id | Yes | Canonical entity ID or name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. 'Diagnostic audit' hints at a read-only operation, but it never states whether the tool mutates state, fetches external data, has side effects/rate limits, or what kind of report it returns.
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, front-loaded with 'Diagnostic audit', and compresses the scope into a compact list. No filler.
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?
Because there is no output schema, the agent is not told what the audit returns (report object? list of mismatches? pass/fail?). Combined with no annotations and no behavioral caveats, the description leaves important operational details missing for a one-parameter diagnostic tool.
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?
Entity_id is already documented as canonical ID/name in the schema, and schema coverage is 100%. The description's list of audit dimensions adds context to what consistency means but doesn't explain parameter format or special values beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.
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?
Description identifies a specific action ('audit') and object ('entity consistency'), listing the data sources checked (company name, domains, GitHub orgs, npm scopes, Schema.org markup). This is enough to distinguish it from search/get/verify siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with analyze_web_presence.
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 phrase 'diagnostic audit' implies use when the user wants to check consistency, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. Siblings like analyze_web_presence could plausibly overlap, and the description doesn't disambiguate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.