Validate an AOP draft against OECD AOP handbook-style completeness. Provide draft_id and optional version_id to check completeness and get results.
Validate a draft against OECD AOP handbook-style completeness expectations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| draft_id | Yes | ||
| version_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| results | Yes | ||
| summary | Yes | ||
| draft_id | Yes | ||
| version_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.10.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this is a safe, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world read, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the notion of 'handbook-style completeness expectations', which hints at the check performed but does not disclose what a failure looks like or which rule set is enforced. Adequate but thin given annotations carry most of the burden.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The tradeoff is that its brevity comes from under-specification rather than tight expression of complete information.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But for a validation tool whose value hinges on the criteria applied, the phrase 'OECD AOP handbook-style completeness expectations' is too vague, and the version_id semantics are unexplained, leaving real gaps.
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% for two parameters, and the description says nothing about either. In particular it never explains that version_id is optional or whether omitting it validates the latest version versus the whole draft — meaningfully important semantics left undocumented in both places.
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 clear verb (validate) and resource (a draft) scoped to OECD AOP handbook-style completeness. However, it does not distinguish itself from the many sibling review_draft_* tools (e.g. review_draft_evidence_gaps, review_draft_bundle), so an agent cannot tell which sibling applies from the description alone.
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?
No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is given. With several sibling draft-review tools available, the description leaves the agent to guess when 'validate' should be preferred over 'review_draft_evidence_gaps' or 'review_draft_bundle'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.