Reconcile the result of a prior operation by reading back its current state, without re-sending the mutation. Use to verify success or resolve uncertainties.
Reconcile by independent read-back only; never resend the mutation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| operation_uid | Yes | ||
| candidate_identity | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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 of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the key trait that this is a read-only reconciliation and never resends the mutation, which is crucial. However, it doesn't mention what happens on mismatch, failure, or whether it modifies any state, leaving gaps in the behavioral picture.
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 a single, dense sentence that front-loads the critical constraint. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or fluff. It's exceptionally concise while conveying the core behavior.
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?
Given the complexity of a recovery operation with two parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is far from complete. It fails to explain parameter semantics, expected input formats, or any side effects. While an output schema exists, the description does not compensate for the missing parameter details, making it inadequate for safe 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 coverage is 0% and the description makes no mention of either parameter (operation_uid or candidate_identity). The agent has no explanation of what these parameters mean, what format operation_uid should take, or how candidate_identity is used. This is a severe deficiency for a tool with two parameters.
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 the action (reconcile) and the method (independent read-back), and distinguishes it from execute_operation by explicitly forbidding resending the mutation. It's specific and actionable, though it doesn't explicitly mention 'recover' or 'retry' which could add clarity.
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 gives a strong directive ('never resend the mutation') which implies when not to use this tool, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like get_operation_status or execute_operation. The guidance is implied rather than explicit, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.