Map domains to repositories and sources, and filter by domain; unknown domains return valid slugs to guide selection.
Lab navigation map — domains → repos → sources. Use domain= to focus on one editorial theme: an unknown domain returns ok=false with the list of valid domain slugs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It helpfully discloses that unknown domains return ok=false with valid domain slugs, but it does not state that the tool is read-only, whether it has side effects, or other operational behavior.
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?
Two compact sentences with the hierarchy description front-loaded and the parameter behavior immediately after. Every sentence adds information; there is no filler.
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?
The tool is simple, has an output schema, and the description covers the hierarchy and the key error case. It is nearly complete, though it lacks guidance on when to use this versus sibling exploration tools and does not state its read-only nature.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the single domain parameter. It explains that domain selects an editorial theme, implies omission returns the full map, and documents the failure mode for unknown values, adding meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema.
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 tool as a lab navigation map showing the domains → repos → sources hierarchy. It does not distinguish this from siblings like explore, session_bootstrap, or workspace_triage, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiating.
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?
It gives concrete usage for the domain parameter: use domain= to focus on one editorial theme, and explains the error behavior for unknown domains. However, it never states when to choose lab_map over explore or other navigation/discovery siblings, leaving the relative usage implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.