Manually link a token to a canonical Lexicon cue, resolving ambiguous references and ensuring consistent terminology mapping in the CueMap repository.
Manually wire a token to a canonical Lexicon cue.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | Yes | ||
| project | No | Optional project ID. Defaults to the repository-scoped project. | |
| canonical | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a manual mutation operation but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or behavior on existing mappings. It fails to explain what happens when the token already exists or whether the operation is reversible.
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 that states the core action immediately. It is concise and free of filler, though it may be too terse to convey necessary context.
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?
For a tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It omits return values, prerequisites, edge cases, and operational details, making it inadequate for an agent to invoke correctly.
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 only 33%, with only 'project' described. The description does not elaborate on the meaning or expected format of 'token' and 'canonical', leaving critical parameters undocumented. It adds little beyond the parameter names themselves.
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 states the action ('wire') and the resource ('token to a canonical Lexicon cue'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like cuemap_lexicon_delete or cuemap_lexicon_inspect. However, 'wire' is somewhat ambiguous and could be more explicit about the mapping action.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cuemap_alias_add or cuemap_add. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.