Fetch version-matched project memory and Jac guides for a coding task, so AI agents reuse prior decisions without version drift.
Return task context from project memory and installed Jac guides, scoped to exact Jac version.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task | Yes | ||
| project | Yes | ||
| max_bytes | No | ||
| jac_version | Yes | ||
| expand_graph | No | ||
| include_guides | 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 behavioral burden. It adds useful context by naming the data sources ('project memory and installed Jac guides') and the version-scoping constraint, but it does not disclose read-only safety, error behavior on version mismatch, rate limits, or how the output is composed.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action, the sources, and the scoping condition efficiently.
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?
For a tool with 6 parameters, 3 required, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It covers the high-level purpose but omits usage guidance, parameter meanings, output expectations, and behavioral details needed to invoke it correctly.
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 schema does not document any of the 6 parameters. The one-sentence description only implicitly touches a few parameters ('task context' → task, 'project memory' → project, 'Jac guides' → include_guides, 'exact Jac version' → jac_version) and says nothing about max_bytes or expand_graph, leaving most parameter semantics unexplained.
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 provides a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('task context from project memory and installed Jac guides'), plus a scope constraint ('scoped to exact Jac version'). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate itself from the sibling tools 'ingest' and 'validate'.
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 offers no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. An agent must infer that this retrieval tool should be called before working on a task, but nothing in the text states when to use it versus 'ingest' or 'validate'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.