NeoCoder Neo4j AI Workflow

propose_tool

Submit a proposal for a new tool to NeoCoder, specifying its name, functionality, parameters, and rationale to extend system capabilities.

Instructions

Propose a new tool for the NeoCoder system.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "description": "<description>",
      "parameters": "<parameters>",
      "rationale": "<rationale>"
    },
    "name": "propose_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Proposed tool name
`rationale`	Yes	Rationale for why this tool would be valuable
`parameters`	Yes	List of parameter definitions for the tool
`description`	Yes	Description of the tool's functionality
`example_usage`	No	Optional example of how the tool would be used
`implementation_notes`	No	Optional technical notes for implementation

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1Aug 7, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the proposal is persisted, reviewed, or requires permissions. The description is too terse to inform the agent about side effects or outcomes.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple and the schema covers parameters, but the description lacks context about expected usage flows, prerequisites, or what happens after proposing. An output schema exists but is not visible here; still, the description could be more informative for a tool with no annotations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, which meets the baseline for high coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('Propose') and resource ('new tool for the NeoCoder system'), making the primary purpose evident. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'suggest_tool' or 'request_tool', so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'suggest_tool' or 'request_tool'. There is no mention of contexts, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving the agent without decision support.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.