Expands related links via HTTP-v2 evidence authority, returning supporting sources for a query.
Expand related links through the HTTP-v2 evidence authority.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | ||
| caller | No | mcp | |
| context | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| error | Yes | ||
| result | Yes | ||
| outcome | Yes | ||
| request_id | Yes | ||
| contract_version | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.6.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden, but it discloses no side effects, permissions, rate limits, source behavior, or whether the operation is read-only. The phrase 'HTTP-v2 evidence authority' does not clarify any behavioral trait an agent could act on.
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?
The description is a single short sentence with no filler, so it is concise. However, the opaque authority phrase consumes the only sentence without adding actionable structure or detail.
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?
The output schema exists, so return values need not be explained in the description. Still, for a three-parameter tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description omits all input semantics and usage context, making it incomplete.
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 the description does not mention any of the three parameters. It adds no meaning for 'query,' 'caller,' or 'context,' leaving the agent entirely dependent on bare schema names and types.
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 verb and resource, 'Expand related links,' so the general purpose is inferable. However, 'through the HTTP-v2 evidence authority' is opaque jargon, and it does not clarify how this differs from the sibling tool expand_links or the other search/extract tools.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool rather than expand_links, search_web, recover_url, or extract_content. The description gives no prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual triggers for selecting this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.