Find the governance terms that apply to a specific URL path by evaluating aps.txt path overrides.
Resolve governance terms for a specific URL path using aps.txt path overrides.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | URL path to resolve (e.g. /blog/my-article) | |
| apsTxt | Yes | aps.txt JSON content |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.0.0Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev2.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the mechanism ('using aps.txt path overrides') but does not mention return format, error behavior, or side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation support.
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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core action and key qualification without any wasted words. It is an excellent example of concise writing.
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?
This is a simple tool with only two parameters and no output schema, so the description is mostly adequate. However, it does not explain what 'resolve governance terms' returns or how the result is structured, which is a notable gap given the absence of an output schema.
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?
The input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (path and apsTxt) with 100% coverage. The description adds the term 'path overrides', which gives a small amount of extra context about apsTxt's role, but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.
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 specifies a clear action ('Resolve') and a distinct resource ('governance terms for a specific URL path'), making it easy to distinguish from related sibling tools like resolve_authority and resolve_lineage. The mention of 'aps.txt path overrides' further narrows the tool's unique purpose.
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 phrase 'for a specific URL path' provides clear context on when to use this tool, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or give when-not-to-use guidance. Among a large set of governance tools, this is a minor gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.