Retrieves fatal commissioning flaw details and defect codes from the Data Center Field Guides audit standard, so you can resolve codes like A-01 or B-02 into their documented meaning.
Looks up fatal commissioning flaws and defect codes (e.g. A-01, B-02, C-03) from the Data Center Field Guides audit standard.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| defect_code | Yes | Defect code such as "A-01", "B-04", "CAT-A-01" |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Looks up' reasonably conveys a non-mutating reference read and the examples hint at accepted code formats, but the description says nothing about behavior on an unknown or malformed code, case sensitivity of the prefixes, or what a hit actually returns.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence identifies the action, the resource, the source standard, and illustrates the identifier format. 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 one-parameter lookup this covers the essentials of what is being fetched, but with no output schema and no annotations the description leaves the return shape (e.g., flaw description, severity, remediation) and failure behavior undefined. That is a real gap for an agent deciding whether this call answers its question.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter, and the schema already supplies example values ('A-01', 'B-04', 'CAT-A-01'). The description's own examples add only marginal extra information and do not explain normalization or variant handling, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 specific verb and resource ('Looks up ... defect codes') and pins down the domain (fatal commissioning flaws from the named field-guide standard). Concrete code examples (A-01, B-02, C-03) remove any ambiguity about what a 'defect code' is, and no sibling (audit_commissioning_script, verify_hydraulic_boundary, classify_corrosion_severity, etc.) overlaps with this retrieval job.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no pointer to alternatives. The agent can infer this is the reference lookup to call when it encounters a defect code, but that inference is entirely unstated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.