Read the local signed world to access a verified, evidence-aware ledger of claims. Provides a safe, read-only view of the current state without requiring initialization or writing permissions.
Read the local signed world. This is safe in source posture; writing requires an initialized subject, evidence, and a digest-pinned constitution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It provides a useful safety signal ('safe in source posture') and notes writing preconditions, but it does not explain what output to expect or what the 'signed world' conceptually contains. This leaves meaningful behavioral gaps for a tool with no annotation support.
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 short sentences, with the core read action front-loaded. The second sentence earns its place by adding a safety caveat, and there is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.
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 parameterless read tool, the essential action is present, but because there is no output schema and no annotations, the agent gets no return-shape or world-semantics information. Sibling differentiation is also absent, so the definition is adequate but not complete for confident selection.
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?
The schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; the baseline 4 applies. The description adds no parameter noise and does not mislead about inputs.
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?
States a clear verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('the local signed world'), and distinguishes read behavior from writing by mentioning writing preconditions. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling read-like tools (query/get), but the 'world' resource is specific enough to orient an agent.
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 implies this is the read-only way to access the local signed world and warns that writing has prerequisites, giving some usage context. However, it never names sibling tools or states when to prefer commons_world over commons_get or commons_query, so exclusions and alternatives are left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.