Decide if a usage like retrieval or training is permitted on a domain.
Decide whether a usage (retrieval, training, summarize, …) is allowed on an origin.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| usage | Yes | Usage key: search, retrieval, input, training, quote, summarize, reproduce, translate, modify, embed, commercial_use | |
| domain | Yes | Origin domain, e.g. shop.aifeed.md | |
| manifestUrl | No | Manifest URL override |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether this is a read-only check, what happens when usage is not allowed (e.g., returns false vs. throws), whether it depends on a manifest, or the return format. This is a significant gap for a decision tool.
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 sentence that goes straight to the point, front-loading the purpose. There is no fluff or redundant information, making it appropriately concise for a simple decision tool.
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?
Given that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what determines the decision, the role of manifestUrl, the expected return value, or any dependencies on other tools like verify_manifest. An agent would need more context to call this tool confidently.
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 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds examples like 'retrieval, training, summarize' but these already appear in the schema's enum list, so it provides minimal additional meaning beyond what the schema already conveys.
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 tool's function: deciding whether a usage type is allowed on an origin domain. It includes concrete usage examples and the wording distinguishes it from sibling tools like verify_manifest or fetch_aifeed, which serve different purposes.
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 when to use the tool (when you need to check if a usage is permitted on an origin), but it does not provide any explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it relates to the sibling tools. There are no alternatives mentioned or exclusions given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.