Validate a user-supplied evidence graph with traceable node and edge identifiers before using it for scientific literature claims or provenance ledgers.
Validate user-supplied evidence graph with traceable evidence identifiers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| edges | Yes | ||
| nodes | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not say whether validation persists anything, what a failure looks like, what makes a graph valid, or what 'traceable evidence identifiers' must conform to. The name/description tension between 'build' and 'validate' further obscures whether this is a read-only check or a mutation.
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 padding, so it is structurally efficient. The problem is under-specification rather than verbosity, which caps the score at adequate.
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?
A graph-building/validation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation needs a far richer description. Nothing tells the agent the expected graph shape, the validation criteria, or what is returned.
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% and both parameters are unconstrained arrays of arbitrary objects (additionalProperties: true). The phrase 'traceable evidence identifiers' is the only hint at expected node/edge content, and it is far too vague to compensate for the missing schema documentation of two required 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 states a specific verb and resource: validate an evidence graph with traceable evidence identifiers. However, the tool NAME says 'build' while the description says 'validate' — an agent cannot tell whether this constructs or only checks a graph. It also does nothing to distinguish itself from close siblings like verify_evidence_ledger or export_evidence.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. With siblings such as verify_evidence_ledger and verify_claim in the same family, the agent is given no basis for choosing this tool over them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.