Validate and store a structured research plan before retrieval begins, ensuring tasks, queries, and execution mode are defined for auditable deep research.
Validate and store the research plan before any retrieval.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| plan | Yes | ||
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Validate and store' implies state changes and validation, but it does not explain what validation entails, whether storage is persistent, whether the tool is idempotent, or what failure conditions might arise.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the action, object, and timing efficiently, though it could offer more context without becoming bloated.
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 and detailed nested schema help an agent construct the call, and the description gives the key timing cue. However, with no annotations and many related sibling tools, it does not fully clarify validation behavior, prerequisites, or how this step relates to init_research and dispatch_parallel_subagents.
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 only mentions 'the research plan.' It does not clarify the semantics of research_id or what qualifies as a valid plan. The nested schema has some field-level descriptions, but the tool description itself adds minimal parameter meaning.
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 verb ('Validate and store') and a clear resource ('the research plan'), with a temporal constraint ('before any retrieval'). This is more specific than a tautology and distinguishes the tool from later retrieval or dispatch operations, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.
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?
The description provides a clear usage condition: call this tool before any retrieval. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the 'before any retrieval' phrasing gives enough context to place it in the workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.