Resolve a did:gdbx identity document from a .GDBx address to verify identity, enable name lookup, and access GDBx data mesh services.
Resolve a did:gdbx identity document for a .GDBx address.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| addr | Yes | 56-char .GDBx address (without .gdbx suffix) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the resolution function and does not mention whether this is a read-only lookup, whether it requires authentication, what happens on invalid addresses, or any error/result behavior.
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, 12-word sentence with no filler or redundant information. It communicates the essential purpose efficiently.
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 simple one-parameter tool, the input is fully documented and the output is implied by the phrase 'identity document'. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits usage context, behavioral expectations, and error handling, making it minimally adequate rather than 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?
The schema already documents the single parameter 'addr' with 100% coverage, including its 56-character .GDBx format and lack of suffix. The description's mention of '.GDBx address' aligns with the schema but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides.
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 ('Resolve') and resource ('did:gdbx identity document') for a '.GDBx address', making the core purpose clear. It is not explicitly contrasted with sibling gdbx_name_resolve, but the distinct resource type makes the differentiation evident.
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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like gdbx_name_resolve or gdbx_sync_get. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context signals that would help an agent decide between sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.