Find reviewed sites for a task and get access level, entry URLs, alternate routes, and block reasons before an agent attempts an action.
Find sites in the atlas for a task. Returns access level (open/session/api/blocked), entry URLs, a better route if one exists, and why a site is blocked.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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 useful work by disclosing the return payload (access level enum of open/session/api/blocked, entry URLs, alternate route, block reason) and implying a read-only lookup, but it says nothing about prerequisites, whether 'blocked' results are an error, or how the lookup is scoped.
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?
Two sentences, purpose first, return contract second, with zero filler. Every clause carries information the agent can act on.
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?
With no output schema, the description's enumeration of return fields is genuinely needed and present. But for a tool with an undocumented free-text input and two close sibling tools, the description should clarify query shape and routing; those omissions leave it only minimally complete.
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% — the single required 'query' parameter has no documentation anywhere. The description could have compensated by explaining what a query looks like (site name, URL, task description?), but 'for a task' only vaguely gestures at it. This is the main functional gap.
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 ('Find sites in the atlas') and clarifies scope with 'for a task', so an agent knows it is a discovery/search operation. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling atlas_site or atlas_guard, so the agent can't tell from the text alone which of the three to reach for.
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?
Beyond the phrase 'for a task', there is no statement of when this tool should be used, when it should not, or which sibling (atlas_site, atlas_guard, browser_search) covers related needs. The agent must infer the routing decision entirely on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.