Breaks down compound claims into atomic parts while automatically superseding the original parent claim, enabling precise research tracking.
Split a compound claim. The parent is superseded automatically.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| children | Yes | ||
| research_id | Yes | ||
| parent_claim_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 available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add a meaningful side effect: 'The parent is superseded automatically,' which is non-obvious and valuable. However, it does not clarify whether this is destructive, whether children are persisted before the parent is superseded, or what validation occurs.
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 only two short sentences and every word earns its place. The primary action and the automatic supersession behavior are front-loaded with no filler or repetition. This is appropriately concise for the amount of information it presents.
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 three required parameters, a nested children array, no annotations, and only a minimal tool description, the definition is under-specified for safe agent invocation. The description omits prerequisites such as the parent claim existing, how research_id should be resolved, what constitutes a valid split, and what outcome the caller should expect beyond an output-schema flag.
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?
The description provides zero parameter-level information for research_id, parent_claim_id, or children. Schema description coverage is reported as 0%, so the description does not compensate for the schema's lack of top-level parameter documentation. An agent gets no guidance on how to construct the children array or what the parent/child semantics are beyond what the raw schema types convey.
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 the core operation with a clear verb and object: 'Split a compound claim.' It avoids pure tautology by adding the 'compound' qualifier and the parent-supersession side effect lexically. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like revise_claim or override_atomicity, so it is clear but undifferentiated.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description never names alternatives such as register_claims or revise_claim, and gives no indication of prerequisites or exclusion criteria. The only implied usage context is the vague notion of a 'compound claim,' leaving the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.