Fetch applicable design knowledge and standards for a CAD design without gating progress. Query by design ID to get needed information.
Retrieve applicable knowledge without making retrieval a CAD gate.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | ||
| required | No | ||
| design_id | Yes | ||
| features_json | No | {} | |
| used_knowledge_ids_json | No | [] |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.11.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only hints at a possible non-blocking intent with 'without making retrieval a CAD gate,' but it does not disclose side effects, retrieval scope, response behavior, or operational constraints.
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 short and front-loaded, with no redundant filler. However, it is more under-specified than usefully concise, and the CAD-gate phrase adds ambiguity rather than structure.
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?
With no annotations, 0% parameter coverage, and 5 parameters including two required fields, this one-line description is severely incomplete. It does not explain how an agent should construct a query, what the required inputs mean, or what response behavior to expect.
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 0% with 5 parameters, and the description mentions none of them. The agent is left without any explanation of design_id, query, required, features_json, or used_knowledge_ids_json.
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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Retrieve applicable knowledge.' It is specific enough to convey the basic action, though it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from its siblings, and the phrase 'without making retrieval a CAD gate' is somewhat jargon-heavy.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of siblings such as design_status, design_record_result, or design_lesson_decide. There are no conditions, exclusions, or alternative tool references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.