oddsky

update_hypothesis

Change a hypothesis's status and confidence with a recorded reason, so investigators can track evidence and decisions during time-domain astronomy case analysis.

Instructions

Change a hypothesis's status (live | favored | disfavored | rejected) and confidence, with a reason.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "case": "<case>",
      "hypothesis": "<hypothesis>",
      "status": "<status>"
    },
    "name": "update_hypothesis"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`case`	Yes
`reason`	No
`status`	Yes
`confidence`	No
`hypothesis`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.1Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a mutation. It discloses the allowed status vocabulary and that a reason is expected, but says nothing about permission requirements, whether transitions are validated (e.g. rejected -> live), whether confidence is overwritten or supplemented, or what the call returns.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the parenthetical enum list is compact and informative. It is arguably too terse for a 5-parameter mutation, but nothing is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 5-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the core intent and the status vocabulary but leaves behavioral questions (validation, permissions, return shape) unanswered. Adequate to select the tool, thin for invoking it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and it partially does: it enumerates the status values that the schema leaves as an untyped string, and clarifies that confidence and reason are part of the update. However, the 'case' and 'hypothesis' identifier parameters are never explained, and the nullability/omission semantics of confidence remain undocumented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Change') and resource ('a hypothesis's status and confidence'), and enumerates the four status values inline, which clarifies scope well. It does not explicitly contrast with add_hypothesis or retract_claim, but the verb+resource is distinctive enough to be selectable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this versus add_hypothesis or retract_claim, no preconditions (must the hypothesis already exist / be live?), and no note on whether status changes are reversible. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.