Evaluate text or structured state with Jev typed questions; submitted state is sent to TypeSafe to return categorized verdicts, severities, and probabilities.
Evaluate text or structured state with Jev typed questions; submitted state is sent to TypeSafe.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| state | Yes | ||
| questions | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one useful trait — submitted state is sent to TypeSafe (a data-flow/privacy note) — but says nothing about permissions, failure modes, or how questions are processed. A single partial disclosure is not enough for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no padding. The semicolon cleanly separates the action from the data-flow note. Efficient, though terse relative to the complexity of the tool.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the two required parameters are undocumented at 0% coverage, the nested questions object is opaque, and there are no annotations. For a tool with nested structured input, this description is not complete enough to invoke confidently.
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 neither required parameter ('state', 'questions') is documented in the schema. The description adds only marginal meaning: state may be 'text or structured' and questions are 'typed'. The nested questions object with additionalProperties is left entirely unexplained.
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 verb (evaluate) and a resource (text or structured state), and mentions 'Jev typed questions'. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like jev_check_hypothesis or jev_review_test_output; the verb 'evaluate' overlaps heavily with 'review' and 'check', leaving the agent unsure which to pick.
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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. The agent is left to infer how this differs from the five sibling review/check tools, which is risky given the overlapping semantics.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.