Find official definitions for domain terms in your project glossary, including aliases and definition text, so you don't have to guess what a domain word means.
Look up a domain term in the project glossary. Matches the term, its aliases, and finally the definition text. Use this instead of guessing what a domain word means.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| term | Yes |
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 usefully discloses the matching behavior: term, then aliases, then definition text. However, it does not state the return format, whether matching is exact or fuzzy, or how errors or missing terms are handled.
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 two sentences with no wasted words. The action and resource are front-loaded, followed by matching behavior and usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place.
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 lookup tool, the description covers purpose, use case, and matching behavior. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not state what a successful lookup returns or how results are formatted, leaving a meaningful gap.
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%, so the description must compensate. It partially does by clarifying that the term is a domain term and that the lookup considers aliases and definition text. Still, it does not explain accepted input format, case sensitivity, or what exact value should be passed beyond 'term'.
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 ('look up') and a clear resource ('domain term in the project glossary'). It is clearly distinct from the listed sibling tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative or differentiate itself from one.
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?
The description gives clear context: use this tool when you need the meaning of a domain term, and it explicitly says to use it instead of guessing. It does not discuss exclusions, but no sibling tool appears to overlap with glossary lookup.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.