world-model-mcp

promote_constraint

Promote a constraint from one project to every other registered project to ensure uniform enforcement and consistency across the codebase.

Instructions

Promote a constraint from this project to all other registered projects

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "constraint_id": "<constraint_id>"
    },
    "name": "promote_constraint"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`constraint_id`	Yes
`target_projects`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.7.3May 27, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the action 'promote' but does not disclose side effects, permissions required, reversibility, or the fact that it likely mutates multiple projects. This leaves significant behavioral uncertainty.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and object. It contains no filler or unnecessary detail, making it easy to parse and understand.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, and the description is minimal. It lacks essential context about the promotion's effects, error conditions, prerequisites, and return values. For a cross-project mutation tool, this is insufficient for an agent to use safely.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

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 for parameter meaning. It implies constraint_id identifies the constraint, but it does not explain target_projects, its optionality, or how it interacts with the default 'all other registered projects'. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses the specific verb 'promote' with a clear resource, 'constraint', and a clear scope, 'from this project to all other registered projects'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_constraints (retrieval) and validate_change (validation), making the purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or conditions for promotion. It only states the action itself, leaving the agent without context for decision-making.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.