Resolve a DID URI to its DID Document, supporting did:key, did:web, and did:pkh methods.
Resolve a DID URI to its DID Document. Supports did:key, did:web, and did:pkh methods.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| did | Yes | The DID URI to resolve |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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 core function without mentioning network dependencies, error handling, timeouts, or any side effects. The behavior beyond the basic action is opaque.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and quickly specifies supported methods. There is no redundant text or unnecessary detail.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose and supported methods. However, it omits potential error scenarios or response format details, which would be useful but are not critical for basic invocation.
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 100% for the single parameter, and the tool description itself adds no extra meaning beyond restating 'DID URI'. Since the schema already fully describes the parameter, the description does not enhance semantic understanding.
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 clearly states the action ('Resolve') and the resource ('DID URI to its DID Document'), and explicitly lists supported methods (did:key, did:web, did:pkh). This distinguishes it from sibling creation/verification tools, which serve entirely different purposes.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of exclusions. However, since it is the only resolve tool among siblings, its purpose is implied. Still, no direct comparison or conditional usage is offered.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.