NeoCoder Neo4j AI Workflow

request_tool

Request new tool features for NeoCoder by providing a description, use case, priority, and requester name.

Instructions

Request a new tool feature 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": {
      "description": "<description>",
      "use_case": "<use_case>"
    },
    "name": "request_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`priority`	No	Priority of the request (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH)	MEDIUM
`use_case`	Yes	How you would use this tool
`description`	Yes	Description of the desired tool functionality
`requested_by`	No	Name of the person requesting the tool

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1Aug 7, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'Request' without detailing side effects, whether it persists data, required permissions, or what the response looks like. This is minimal but not entirely absent.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single sentence and front-loaded, but it is under-specified. It lacks essential context, making it more under-specified than appropriately concise. It earns a middle score for brevity without sacrificing the little meaning it does convey.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool has 4 parameters and an output schema, the description should at least clarify the purpose and any relevant context, but it does not. It fails to explain when to use it or what the request entails, leaving significant gaps in understanding for the agent.

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 input schema already documents all four parameters. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, so it meets the baseline of 3 but does not exceed it.

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 'Request' and the resource 'new tool feature' for the NeoCoder system. It conveys the core purpose without ambiguity, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'propose_tool' or 'suggest_tool'.

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. The description simply states what it does, without any context on prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions. This leaves the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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