Reads observed class, label, or dimension candidates with registered policy IDs from a prepared manifest to review and select CAD-to-GIS relationship candidates.
Read only observed class, label or dimension candidates with registered policy IDs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| max_bytes | No | ||
| policy_id | No | ||
| entity_ids | No | ||
| relation_kind | No | label | |
| prepare_manifest | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does convey a read-only nature and references registered policy IDs, which is some signal. But it omits permission requirements, pagination behavior (cursor/limit exist), and what 'observed' vs registered means operationally.
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?
It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is good. But the sentence is cryptic and awkwardly worded, so brevity comes at the cost of comprehension rather than being tight-but-complete.
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?
For a 7-parameter tool with no annotations and only a one-line description, this is under-specified. An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, but the required prepare_manifest and the filtering/pagination params are left entirely unexplained.
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?
Seven parameters at 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate and largely fails. It tangentially maps to relation_kind (class/label/dimension) and policy_id, but says nothing about prepare_manifest (required), entity_ids, limit, cursor, or max_bytes.
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 names a read operation over 'relationship candidates' and hints at the domain (class, label or dimension candidates with policy IDs). However, the phrasing is grammatically awkward ('Read only observed class...') and doesn't clearly distinguish it from siblings like list_label_candidates or list_endpoint_join_candidates.
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 guidance on when to use this versus the several candidate-listing siblings (list_label_candidates, list_legend_catalog_candidates, list_endpoint_join_candidates). No prerequisites or conditions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.