Save a structured knowledge claim with its source and confidence, enabling evidence-based tutoring and review.
Save one structured knowledge claim with its source and confidence.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| claim | Yes | ||
| source_id | No | ||
| confidence | No | ||
| request_id | No | ||
| session_id | Yes | ||
| knowledge_scope | No | ||
| conflicting_sources | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'save' implies mutation, but it does not state whether the operation is idempotent, overwrites existing claims, requires specific permissions, or handles conflicting sources. No output schema is present to clarify what the agent should expect.
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 sentence with no fluff or redundancy. It is appropriately brief, though the brevity veers into under-specification rather than efficient completeness.
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 mutation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is severely under-specified. It fails to explain what a 'benchmark claim' is, how it integrates with sessions, what conflicting_sources means, or how to construct a valid claim. An agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without external knowledge.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage and 7 parameters, the description must compensate but only hints at source_id and confidence via 'source and confidence'. Other parameters like knowledge_scope, conflicting_sources, and request_id remain completely unexplained, leaving the agent to guess their semantics.
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 clear verb ('Save') and identifies the resource ('one structured knowledge claim'), and mentions 'source and confidence' which maps to two key parameters. It differentiates from siblings like save_knowledge_nodes (which likely saves multiple nodes) and save_benchmark_report (which saves a report) by emphasizing 'one claim', though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as save_knowledge_nodes, save_benchmark_report, or record_source_conflict. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions for selection, or scenarios where this tool is inappropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.