Fetch a specific company context item by kind and ID, retrieving its details from the corporate source of truth for AI assistants.
Resolve one company context item through Yonote or the matching source-of-truth domain.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | Yes | ||
| item_id | Yes | ||
| max_chars | No |
| 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?
The readOnlyHint annotation already marks the operation as read-only. The description adds the 'through Yonote or the matching source-of-truth domain' detail, suggesting a fallback or selection mechanism, but it does not explain what happens on failure, error handling, or truncation behavior related to max_chars. The added context is useful but limited.
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 sentence, which is concise and front-loaded, but it is under-specifying. It omits critical details that an agent needs, making it too terse to be fully useful. The length is acceptable, but the content is insufficient.
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 three parameters, no schema descriptions, and an output schema present, the description should explain the 'kind' enum and the 'max_chars' truncation behavior. It does not, leaving the agent with guesswork about how to invoke the tool correctly. The fallback behavior is also vaguely described.
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 provides no explanation for the three parameters (kind, item_id, max_chars). An agent cannot infer what valid 'kind' values are, what 'item_id' refers to, or how 'max_chars' affects the result. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema-level documentation.
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 specific verb ('Resolve') and resource ('one company context item'), and implies a single-item retrieval that differentiates it from search tools. It also hints at a dual-source resolution ('through Yonote or the matching source-of-truth domain'), which separates it from a pure source-of-truth getter, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like gateway_company_search or gateway_company_get_source_of_truth. There are no conditions, exclusions, or context cues to help an agent decide between them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.