Lockstep Core

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

record_session_declaration

DestructiveIdempotent

Captures session type, goal, deliverable, completion criteria, and scope on the current chain link to enable structured AI handoffs.

Instructions

Write Session Declaration to current chain link.

    6 components: type, goal, deliverable, completion criteria,
    out of scope, partner confirm.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "params": "<params>"
    },
    "name": "record_session_declaration"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`params`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.1Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing about what a write does to the chain link, whether prior declarations are overwritten, or permission requirements.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a component list. Minor waste in the multi-line formatting but no filler prose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, but for a destructive, idempotent write to a chain link the description never explains the chain-link model, what happens on re-invocation, or the meaning of the declaration in the workflow. It is too thin for the tool's role.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description lists components (type, goal, deliverable, completion criteria, out of scope, partner confirm) that partially map to the schema fields, but 'partner confirm' matches no property and 'context_from_previous' is omitted. The schema itself already carries per-field descriptions, so the prose adds little and is slightly out of sync.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Write Session Declaration') and names the target container ('current chain link'), which differentiates it from siblings like record_handoff or record_gate_skip. It stops short of fully disambiguating from other record_* tools, but an agent can identify the operation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the many record_*/chain tools. The agent must infer that this is called at session start from the word 'Declaration' alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.