Extract section, table, and chapter references from free text and validate them against the building-code index to confirm which references actually exist.
Parse free text for section/table/chapter references and report which ones exist in the index.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | ||
| corpus | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It communicates a read-only parse-and-report behavior, but does not mention side effects, required index/corpus state, or error 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?
A single, direct sentence that front-loads the action and avoids redundant wording.
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?
The tool is simple and an output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, the 'corpus' parameter is unexplained and the relationship between 'index' and 'corpus' is ambiguous.
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%. The 'text' parameter is loosely tied to 'free text', but the optional 'corpus' parameter is never mentioned or explained, leaving a significant parameter-semantics gap.
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 names a specific action ('parse'), a specific resource ('section/table/chapter references'), and the outcome ('report which ones exist'), making it clearly distinct from sibling tools like search_code 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?
The description implies the use case—validating references in free text—but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or give exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.