Answers integration questions by optionally pulling Exa evidence through OpenRouter. Read-only, so you can get grounded chat responses from trusted sources.
Answer an integration question using optional Exa evidence through OpenRouter. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | Yes | ||
| evidence | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Read-only' is a genuinely useful disclosure, and naming Exa/OpenRouter implies an external network call, but it says nothing about latency, cost, auth, or failure modes for a tool that reaches out to third-party services.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and mechanism, with no filler. The 'Read-only.' fragment is clipped but useful.
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?
No output schema, no annotations, and 0% parameter coverage mean the description should do far more. It omits the return shape, message formatting, and the structure of the evidence array, leaving the agent under-informed before 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies the evidence parameter is Exa-sourced and optional, which adds some meaning, but the required 'message' parameter's format and constraints are entirely undocumented.
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?
States a specific verb (answer) and resource (integration question) and hints at the mechanism (Exa evidence via OpenRouter). It does not explicitly contrast itself with forgepilot_search, but the chat/answer framing is distinct enough for an agent to separate the two.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this versus forgepilot_search or any other sibling, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer that this is for reasoning-style Q&A rather than retrieval.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.