Get answers to technical questions by querying local documents with hybrid retrieval. Receive cited sources and streaming progress updates for transparent, auditable results.
Responde com RAG e faz streaming do progresso/tokens via progress notifications.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| top_k | No | ||
| question | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose one valuable behavior: streaming progress/tokens via progress notifications. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, how long it may take, or any limitations.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words: it states the core RAG answering behavior first, then the streaming detail. It is appropriately concise, though a bit more structure could improve clarity.
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 no annotations, no schema descriptions, and sibling tools that could overlap, this description is too thin. It omits parameter semantics, usage context, and any distinction from search; the output schema helps with return values but not with selection or 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 0% and the description never mentions question or top_k. The agent must infer their meaning entirely from the schema's bare property names.
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 identifies the action (responds) and the method (RAG), and the streaming mention adds a distinguishing behavioral trait. It stops short of a 5 because it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like search.
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 when-to-use guidance is provided, and the sibling tools are never referenced. The verb 'ask' offers only an implied use case, which is not enough for an agent to reliably choose this over search.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.