Retrieve your saved contacts (name, public key, hash prefix) from the local address book; use presence lookup separately to see where they are reachable.
The partners in your address book: name, public key, hash prefix. Where they can be reached right now is not in the book; use aamio_presence_lookup.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by naming the exact fields returned (name, public key, hash prefix) and by clarifying that presence/reachability is not part of this tool's data, which is about the tool's scope and output rather than 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?
Two tight sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and return fields; the second sentence adds the caveat about reachability and routes to the sibling. Every word earns its place.
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, read-only, parameterless tool, the description provides the essential output fields and synchronically differentiates from the presence-lookup tool. Combined with annotations that cover mutation safety and open-world semantics, nothing necessary for calling or interpreting the tool is missing.
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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema is an empty object, so there are no parameters to document. Per the baseline for a zero-parameter tool, the description does not need to add parameter semantics; it already states the domain of the returned data, so a 4 is appropriate.
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 identifies the resource (partners in address book) and its key attributes (name, public key, hash prefix), making clear what data this tool exposes. It distinguishes itself from aamio_presence_lookup, but lacks an explicit action verb like 'list' or 'get', so it stops short of a perfect 5.
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?
Explicitly states that current reachability information is not in this book and directs the agent to use aamio_presence_lookup for that need. This provides a clear when-not-to-use condition and names the specific alternative, satisfying the top of the rubric.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.