Restores a coding model's identity so it can continue the reasoning protocol after identity loss or ambiguity.
Восстанавливает идентичность.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "confirm_identity"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v6.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about whether this mutates state, what prior state is required, whether the effect is reversible, or what a caller receives. For a tool whose name suggests altering agent identity, this silence is a serious gap.
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?
One short sentence is technically compact, but it is under-specification rather than conciseness: no clause carries actionable information for the caller. Brevity here buys nothing because nothing was said.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and a zero-parameter schema, the description is the only channel for context, and it delivers none. An agent cannot determine preconditions, side effects, or expected outcome before invoking it.
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 input schema declares zero properties, so there are no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. The description does not falsely imply any 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?
The description is a single fragment, "Восстанавливает идентичность" ("Restores identity"), which restates the tool's domain without saying what is actually restored, in which system, or to what end. It also drifts from the tool name (confirm vs. restore), leaving the agent unsure whether the operation verifies or rewrites state.
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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative named anywhere in the description, despite a large sibling set that includes suppression and compliance-bypass tools that plausibly overlap. The agent must guess entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.