Look up HCL reference content by topic to access bins, coefficients, caveats, or overview details for human-centric lighting analysis.
Look up HCL reference content. topic: bins | coefficients | caveats | overview.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| topic | No | overview |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
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. 'Look up' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state non-destructiveness, authorization requirements, or any side effects. It also doesn't disclose the return format or pagination behavior, leaving agents without crucial behavioral context.
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 extremely concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The topic list is a compact addition. No wasted words, though it is so brief that it might under-specify, which slightly lowers the score from a perfect 5.
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 simplicity (one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description could be minimal. However, it doesn't mention any prerequisites, disambiguation from the 'reference' sibling, or edge cases. For a lookup tool with many siblings, more context would be expected to ensure correct selection.
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 0%, but the description compensates by explicitly enumerating the valid topics: bins, coefficients, caveats, overview. This gives the agent concrete guidance on parameter values beyond the raw schema, which only declares a default.
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 verb 'look up' and the resource 'HCL reference content', and lists specific topics. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'reference', which likely serves a similar purpose, so it loses a point for not addressing sibling distinction.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or when to prefer another tool, such as the sibling 'reference'. This is a significant gap for a tool with many siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.