List the closed, typed vocabulary of words, kinds, owners, statuses, schemas, and taste notes, and filter by status to reveal coming-soon gaps that work orders must close.
The closed, typed vocabulary: words with their kinds, owners, statuses, param schemas and taste notes. Filter by status to see the coming-soon edges — the gaps that only a work order can close.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden. Its noun-phrase framing signals a read operation rather than a mutation, and the 'closed, typed vocabulary' plus 'coming-soon edges' wording reveals domain semantics (statuses can be pending/incomplete). It does not state permissions, result size, pagination, or ordering, which is a meaningful gap for a zero-annotation 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 compact sentences with no filler: the resource and its fields come first, then the filter scenario. The 'taste notes' and 'coming-soon edges' phrasing is domain flavor that doubles as semantic signal rather than pure padding.
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 single-optional-param read tool with no output schema, the description covers what the entries contain and what filtering yields. It falls short on the status value domain and on any hint of result shape or size, leaving an agent to discover those by calling.
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?
There is one optional parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the semantics of the status filter (surface not-yet-filled edges) but never indicates the accepted values for status, so an agent cannot choose a value without trial and error.
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 identifies the resource precisely and non-tautologically: the closed, typed vocabulary of words, along with the fields each entry carries (kinds, owners, statuses, param schemas, taste notes). The verb is only implied by the tool name, but an agent can tell this is a retrieval of vocabulary entries and that no sibling tool does the same thing.
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?
'Filter by status to see the coming-soon edges — the gaps that only a work order can close' gives one concrete usage scenario and implicitly points toward file_work_order as the follow-up. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative for the unfiltered call, so usage is implied rather than fully prescribed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.