Retrieve NASA/JPL Power of 10 coding rules with code-level, architecture-level, and organizational applications; pass a rule 1-10 or omit for all ten.
Retrieve NASA/JPL Power of 10 rules (Holzmann 2006) with the persona's code-level, architecture-level, and organisational-level applications. Pass rule (1-10) for one rule, or omit for all ten.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rule | No | Rule number 1-10. Omit for all rules. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the content shape (per-rule applications at three levels) but never states that the operation is a side-effect-free, static-corpus read, nor anything about return format or caching. Adequate but thin for an annotation-free tool.
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?
Two tight sentences with the resource and its content front-loaded; nothing is bloated. The second sentence largely duplicates the schema's parameter description, so it is efficient rather than perfectly economical.
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 one-parameter knowledge lookup with no output schema, the description conveys what is returned (the ten rules plus three levels of persona application) and how to scope the request, which is enough to invoke it correctly.
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 100% and the single parameter is already fully documented in the schema (1-10, omit for all). The description simply restates the same bounds and omission behavior, adding no syntax or semantic meaning beyond it.
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?
States a specific verb (Retrieve) and a precise resource (NASA/JPL Power of 10 rules, Holzmann 2006), and even names the payload structure (code-, architecture-, organisational-level applications). It does not, however, differentiate itself from adjacent knowledge-retrieval siblings such as get_knowledge_area or get_verification_gates.
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 explains how to invoke it (pass `rule` 1-10 for one, omit for all ten) but gives no guidance on when to reach for this corpus versus the sibling knowledge/verification tools. Usage is implied by the resource name rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.