evernode-mcp

Explain an Evernode/HotPocket error

explain_error

Read-onlyIdempotent

Identify root causes and fixes for HotPocket/Evernode errors, covering connection, consensus, host availability, EVR balance, lease expiry, Docker, and hook rejection.

Instructions

Map a HotPocket/Evernode error message to its likely cause and fix (connection, consensus stall, no hosts, insufficient EVR, lease expiry, docker, Hook rejection).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "error_text": "<error_text>"
    },
    "name": "explain_error"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`error_text`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`matched`	No
`message`	No
`explanations`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent. The description adds the context that it maps to cause and fix and lists error types, which is moderate added value.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the action, and contains no wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the output schema exists, the description covers the input and output intent adequately. It lists error categories, providing sufficient context for a low-complexity tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It indicates the input is an error message but does not specify format, examples, or constraints beyond that.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Map' and resource 'error message' and lists specific error categories. It distinguishes from siblings which are about templates, deployments, etc.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use it (when encountering a HotPocket/Evernode error) but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server