Fetches relevant exemplars for a specified task and optional task type to guide prompts and improve task-specific results.
Retrieve best exemplars for a task (optionally filtered by task_type).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task | Yes | ||
| top_k | No | ||
| task_type | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Input schema / properties / task_typeAdded value: +{
+ "maxLength": 64,
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "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 burden. It does not disclose how 'best' is determined (ranking/scoring), whether results are read-only safe, what is returned, or any limits beyond what the schema implies.
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 efficient sentence with the key concept front-loaded and no wasted words. Brevity here is appropriate, though it edges toward under-specification rather than true conciseness.
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 3-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does far too little. An agent lacks ranking semantics, result shape, and top_k meaning needed to call it reliably.
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%, so the description should compensate. It only loosely maps 'task' as the query and 'task_type' as an optional filter, and never mentions top_k at all, leaving a third of the parameters undocumented anywhere.
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 (Retrieve) and resource (exemplars) with the additional qualifier 'best' and the optional task_type filter. An agent can tell it apart from ingest_exemplar, though it does not name or distinguish itself from near-neighbors like get_procedure or knowledge_retrieve.
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?
Implies usage via 'for a task' and notes that task_type is an optional filter, but gives no when-to-use/when-not guidance and no direction on choosing between this and related retrieval siblings. The alternative selection is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.