Retrieve procedure guardrails for a task or model to prevent common mistakes and guide compliant execution.
Get procedure guardrails (anti-blunder) for a task/model.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task | Yes | ||
| model | No | ||
| project_root | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Input schema / properties / project_rootAdded value: +{
+ "maxLength": 4096,
+ "type": "string"
+}v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only implies a read operation via 'Get' and omits return shape, side effects, auth requirements, and whether guardrails are computed or stored.
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 filler or repetition. It is efficient, though the brevity contributes to under-specification in other dimensions.
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?
With three parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the definition lacks enough detail for reliable invocation. It provides no parameter semantics, no return information, and no sibling routing guidance.
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 mentions only task/model while leaving project_root unexplained. It gives no format, meaning, or requiredness details for any of the three parameters.
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 specific verb 'Get' and resource 'procedure guardrails (anti-blunder)' scoped to a task/model. The parenthetical clarifies the concept, but the description does not differentiate it from siblings such as get_procedure or retrieve_exemplars.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives. The phrase 'for a task/model' supplies only a vague context, not selection criteria versus sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.