what_do_i_knowRetrieves dated facts, direct relations, and two-hop neighbors for a named project entity, helping coding agents recall context and make informed decisions.
Everything about one entity: dated facts, direct relations and neighbours up to two hops away.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| entity_type | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value with the two-hop traversal boundary, which bounds cost and result size, but says nothing about behaviour when the entity is missing or how the traversal is capped.
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 dense sentence that front-loads the resource ('one entity') and enumerates the return contents, with zero filler. Slight gap: an opaque tool name that the description never echoes or clarifies.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully sketches the return shape (facts, relations, neighbours) which is a genuine plus. However, for a two-parameter lookup tool with zero schema coverage, the omission of any parameter meaning or not-found behaviour leaves it only minimally complete.
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 never mentions the parameters. It does not say whether name must be exact or case-sensitive, nor what entity_type disambiguates (the enum values suggest it narrows the lookup, but this is 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?
The description states exactly what the tool returns: dated facts, direct relations, and neighbours up to two hops for a single entity. Scope and depth are precise, though it lacks an explicit verb and never distinguishes itself by name from siblings such as recall or get_context.
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 versus recall, get_context, or rules. The agent must infer that this is the deep-lookup tool while recall is presumably a lighter search, and there are no stated preconditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.