mcp_m7_check_errorsCheck the error journal for past mistakes before starting work, optionally filtered by error type, so you can avoid repeating them.
Check error journal to avoid repeating past mistakes
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| error_type | No | Type of error to check (optional) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.18.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Check' hints at a read-only operation, but it does not state whether the journal is read-only, where it is scoped, what format results take, or whether any authentication is required. This is minimal for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the tool's action and intended benefit immediately.
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?
The tool is simple (one optional parameter, no output schema), but the description omits what a journal entry contains, how error_type filters results, and how it differs from overlapping siblings. These gaps are not fatal for a simple read tool, but they leave the agent with insufficient context to use it confidently in a crowded toolset.
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 100%, and the single optional parameter error_type is already documented as 'Type of error to check (optional)'. The description adds no further meaning such as accepted error-type values or filtering behavior, so the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 states a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('error journal') and adds the goal 'to avoid repeating past mistakes'. However, it does not differentiate from closely related siblings such as mcp_m7_error_database or mcp_m7_repentance, leaving an agent unsure which to select.
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 'to avoid repeating past mistakes' implies the tool's purpose and a general usage context, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like mcp_m7_error_database or mcp_m7_repentance. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.