Retrieve the canonical register of unresolved items from the active project. Read-only access that preserves authority and does not reconstruct state.
Read-only. Return the engine's canonical unresolved register. Requires an active project and does not reconstruct or change authority.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it states the tool requires an active project, returns the canonical register, and explicitly does not reconstruct or change authority.
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 two short sentences with no filler. The key facts are front-loaded ('Read-only. Return...') and the additional constraints ('Requires an active project', 'does not reconstruct or change authority') each add distinct value.
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-only tool with a provided output schema and strong annotations, the description is complete. It covers the essential precondition, the exact resource returned, and the critical negative behavior (does not change authority).
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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete with 100% coverage. The description does not need to add parameter-level meaning, and the baseline of 4 applies for parameterless tools.
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 states a specific verb ('Return') and a specific resource ('the engine's canonical unresolved register'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. This also distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_state or get_round, which target different resources.
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 explicitly states a precondition ('Requires an active project'), giving the agent context on when it can be invoked. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the 'canonical' phrasing and 'does not reconstruct' contrast imply when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.