Check a claim against project memory before stating it as fact; returns matching candidates and status SUPPORTED_CANDIDATES or NO_EVIDENCE for comparison.
Check a claim against memory before stating it as fact. Returns candidate memories and a status: SUPPORTED_CANDIDATES (compare the content yourself) or NO_EVIDENCE.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| claim | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does useful work: it discloses the two possible status outcomes and explains that SUPPORTED_CANDIDATES means the agent must compare content itself rather than trusting a verdict. It does not state side-effect/reversibility profile or how candidates are matched, leaving a gap for an unannotated tool.
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, zero waste, with the action and the precondition front-loaded before the return-value explanation. Every clause carries information.
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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema; the description compensates by naming both return elements and their semantics. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.
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?
There is only one parameter and schema description coverage is 0%, but the parameter is named "claim" and the description's phrasing ("check a claim") makes its meaning self-evident. No added detail on expected length, phrasing, or whether it should be a verbatim statement versus a question.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: check a claim against memory, returning candidate memories plus a status. This is clearly distinguishable in behavior from sibling search/list tools, but the description never names a sibling for direct contrast.
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?
"before stating it as fact" gives an explicit trigger condition, and "compare the content yourself" tells the agent that the tool does not render a verdict. No when-not-to-use conditions or named alternatives are given, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.