Reveal a declared source and the exact claims it supports on one governed context record, so you can verify which evidence backs an operational answer.
Show a declared source and the exact claims it supports on one context record.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| recordId | Yes | ||
| sourceId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that output is a source plus the claims it supports on one record, which is useful framing, but says nothing about result format, emptiness cases, or whether the source must already be declared.
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 filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is part of why parameter and usage detail is missing.
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?
For a read-only lookup tool with no output schema, the description covers the conceptual output but omits parameter meaning and usage routing. Adequate at a minimum-viable level, but leaves real gaps an agent would face when invoking it.
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% for both required parameters. The description only obliquely implies the mapping ('one context record' -> recordId, 'declared source' -> sourceId) without explaining ID format, scope, or whether the source must pre-exist. It fails to compensate for the coverage 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?
States a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('a declared source and the exact claims it supports'), so an agent can tell it produces a source-to-claims view. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like search_context or validate_record, leaving the boundary to inference.
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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus search_context, validate_record, or inspect_ingestion. The agent must guess the triggering scenario from the description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.