Execute any named REA tool by passing JSON arguments to inspect shipped software and gather evidence-linked findings; retrieve its schema first.
Run any REA tool by name. Pass arguments as a JSON object string. Example args_json: {"document":"main","address":"0x1000"}. Get the schema via rea_describe first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Exact REA tool name from rea_search | |
| args_json | Yes | JSON object string with the tool arguments |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It conveys the key mechanic (arbitrary tool invocation with opaque JSON args) but never warns that it can trigger mutation/destructive underlying tools, nor how errors from the wrapped tool surface. That's a meaningful gap for a proxy that can invoke anything.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the calling convention, then the prerequisite. The example JSON is concrete and earns its space.
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 should explain what a call returns, but it never says the response is the wrapped tool's output or how failures are reported. For a two-required-param dispatcher this is adequate but leaves the agent guessing on result handling.
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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents both parameters, including that 'name' comes from rea_search. The inline example of args_json is a small value-add but adds no syntax rules, quoting caveats, or nesting guidance beyond the schema.
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 ('Run any REA tool by name') and immediately clarifies the calling convention, which distinguishes it from the lookup siblings rea_search and rea_describe. An agent knows this is the generic dispatcher without opening the schema.
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?
Explicitly prescribes the workflow: fetch the schema via rea_describe first, and the schema names rea_search as the source of valid tool names. It doesn't say when NOT to use this (e.g. prefer a direct tool if available), so it falls short of 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.