Finalize research into an auditable synthesis manifest, ensuring evidence integrity and citation auditing.
Finalize into an auditable synthesis manifest; do not generate prose inside the MCP.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| research_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | ||
| status | Yes | ||
| agent_rules | No | ||
| next_action | No | ||
| quality_gate | No | ||
| protocol_version | No | 7.2 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions 'do not generate prose inside the MCP,' which is a specific behavioral trait, but it does not clarify side effects (e.g., whether it modifies research state, locks it, or creates a new record). The term 'auditable synthesis manifest' hints at output but not mutation or permissions.
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 extremely brief, a single sentence with two clauses, and the primary action is front-loaded. It avoids fluff and is easy to scan. However, the brevity borders on under-specification, preventing a perfect score.
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?
Given the tool's likely terminal role in a research workflow, the description is incomplete. It does not mention when in the pipeline to call it, what happens to the research data, or how the output manifest relates to other steps. The output schema exists, but the description itself lacks essential context for correct invocation.
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 0%, and the description does not explain the 'research_id' parameter beyond its name. There is no guidance on where to obtain it or what format it expects. The description adds zero meaning beyond the schema's basic type declaration.
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 specific action ('Finalize into an auditable synthesis manifest') with a clear resource. It distinguishes itself from other research tools by implying a terminal step. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings, so it falls short of a 5.
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 versus the many sibling tools (e.g., plan_research, init_research, assess_claims). The phrase 'do not generate prose inside the MCP' is a behavioral constraint, not usage context. No prerequisites or conditions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.