Check whether an IC-CAP object exists at a specified absolute path. Use this to validate paths and avoid errors before accessing or modifying objects.
Check if an IC-CAP object exists at the specified path.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| object_path | Yes | Absolute IC-CAP object path | |
| object_type | No | Specify the exact IC-CAP type when a path can name more than one object. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It conveys the core behavior: testing existence at a path. However, it does not disclose return representation, behavior on invalid paths, whether ambiguous paths cause errors, or how object_type affects the check. For a simple predicate this is acceptable but not richly transparent.
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?
One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to defining the tool's purpose.
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?
Given the low complexity, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it identifies a predicate operation and the key parameter. The only gap is the lack of explicit return-type or edge-case behavior, but the implied boolean result is sufficient for this simple tool.
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%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond restating the path concept. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the weight.
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 clearly states a specific action ('Check if'), a resource ('IC-CAP object'), and a scoping detail ('at the specified path'). It is unambiguous and not a tautology. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the various type-specific *_exists sibling tools.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this generic existence check versus the type-specific existence tools like mpar_exists, dvar_exists, or tablevar_exists. It also does not state when the optional object_type parameter should be used, aside from what is already in the schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.