Inspect any cue to reveal its Lexicon relationships and see how it connects to associated concepts in your project.
Inspect one cue and its Lexicon relationships.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cue | Yes | ||
| project | No | Optional project ID. Defaults to the repository-scoped project. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Inspect' strongly implies a read-only, non-mutating operation, and it names what is being examined. However, it does not explicitly state that nothing is modified, what happens when the cue is absent, or what form the inspection results take.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and object. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, with no filler or repetition.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description should clarify what an agent can expect from the inspection, but it only mentions 'relationships' without detail. It also lacks any mention of error conditions, permission needs, or relationship to sibling lexicon operations, leaving important operational context unspecified.
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 50%: the optional 'project' parameter is already described in the schema, while 'cue' has no description. The tool description reinforces that 'one cue' is the target but adds no format, encoding, or cue-identity details. Given the simplicity of the parameters, this is adequate but not enriching.
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 uses the specific verb 'Inspect' and identifies a single resource ('one cue') plus the relationship domain ('Lexicon relationships'). It is clear about the tool's core action and scope. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like cuemap_lexicon_graph or cuemap_lexicon_wire, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cuemap_lexicon_graph, cuemap_lexicon_wire, or cuemap_recall. There are no stated conditions, exclusions, or context cues that would help an agent choose between closely related lexicon tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.