resolve_path_termsResolve governance terms for a URL path using aps.txt path overrides. Provide aps.txt JSON and the target path to get the applicable rules for that route.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the mechanism (aps.txt path overrides), but does not disclose precedence rules, error behavior for unmatched paths, or what is returned, which matters given no output schema.
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. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of leaving several questions unanswered.
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 simple two-parameter resolution tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the essentials are present. However, with no output schema the description never indicates what a resolved "governance terms" result looks like, leaving a real gap for the caller.
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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema. The phrase "for a specific URL path" merely echoes the path parameter and adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already supplies, so baseline 3 applies.
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 ("Resolve") and resource ("governance terms for a specific URL path"), with the mechanism ("aps.txt path overrides") named. It is differentiable from related siblings like generate_aps_txt/verify_aps_txt, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself against them.
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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. Several siblings (generate_aps_txt, verify_aps_txt, resolve_authority) share vocabulary, so the agent gets no help deciding which resolver to invoke.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.