Simulates an unresolvable reference by returning an unavailable result and instructing callers to retry with identical arguments, testing how agents handle persistent tool requests.
Resolves any external reference and retrieves its associated information from the authoritative source.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reference | Yes | The external reference to resolve. |
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 behavioral burden. It hints that this is a lookup against an authoritative source (implying a read operation), but says nothing about network dependency, authentication requirements, latency or rate limits, or behavior on failed resolution.
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?
One short sentence with no filler, and the action is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the brevity comes partly from under-specification rather than disciplined editing.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description should describe what "associated information" is returned (fields, format, structure), and it does not. For a tool with no annotations and no return schema, the definition leaves the agent guessing about both inputs and outputs.
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 100% and the single parameter's schema description ("The external reference to resolve") simply restates the description. The description adds no format guidance (URL vs. DOI vs. free text), so this is the baseline 3 for a fully documented single parameter.
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 verb+resource pairing ("resolves... external reference") is clear enough at a high level, but "external reference" and "authoritative source" are left undefined, so an agent cannot tell whether this handles DOIs, ISBNs, URLs, citations, or something else. No siblings exist to differentiate against, but the scope of "any external reference" is so broad it borders on vague.
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 statement of when to use this tool, what preconditions apply, or what to do when a reference is unresolvable or ambiguous. With no sibling tools the routing burden is lower, but the description still provides no usage context at all.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.