tez_grep_constantRetrieve an OCaml constant definition from the Tezos protocol source by name.
Look up an OCaml constant definition from the protocol source.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| protocol | No | Optional protocol name filter | |
| constant_name | Yes | Constant name (e.g. 'max_operations_ttl', 'blocks_per_cycle') |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. The word 'Look up' implies a read-only operation, but there is no explicit statement about side effects, error behavior, or output format.
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, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy.
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 description is adequate for a simple lookup tool, but it lacks context about when to choose this over search tools. However, the presence of an output schema means the return value explanation is not required.
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 already provides descriptions and examples for both parameters (constant_name and protocol). The tool description adds nothing beyond what is already in the schema, so it provides minimal additional value.
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 verb 'Look up' is specific and the resource 'OCaml constant definition from the protocol source' is clearly defined. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tez_search which likely performs broader searches.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for exact, direct constant lookup or that searching would be more appropriate for fuzzy queries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.