Retrieve the authoritative DSL model, templates, and entity-management workflow to understand a repository's declared architecture and align agent actions accordingly.
Return the authoritative DSL model, templates, and entity-management workflow.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| env_file | No | ||
| workspace_path | No | ||
| government_repository_path | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. 'Return' suggests a read-only operation, but the description does not mention side effects, file-system or network access, failure modes, or preconditions, leaving the agent without enough behavioral context.
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?
The description is a single focused sentence with the main verb front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately concise, though the brevity comes at the expense of missing operational details.
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 presence of an output schema covers return-value shape, but the description still lacks usage routing and parameter semantics. Since there are no annotations and zero required parameters, the tool is easy to invoke empty, but an agent cannot make informed choices about the optional path parameters or when this tool is the right pick.
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%, and the description does not mention env_file, workspace_path, or government_repository_path or how they affect the returned model. The parameter titles provide some hint, but an agent cannot determine which path parameter to supply or how they relate to the DSL model, templates, and workflow.
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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and names the resource ('authoritative DSL model, templates, and entity-management workflow'), which distinguishes it from siblings like repository_list or entity_list. However, terms like 'DSL model' and 'entity-management workflow' are not defined further, leaving some ambiguity about the exact returned content.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like repository_validate, repository_status, entity_list, or repository_commit. The word 'authoritative' hints at canonical reference usage, but no explicit condition, alternative, or exclusion is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.