Finalize a research chain by submitting a conclusion with a synthesis or decision. Use when you need to mark research as complete and record the outcome.
Mark a research chain as completed with final synthesis.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chainId | Yes | ||
| conclusion | Yes | Final synthesis / decision |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but says nothing about whether the chain becomes immutable, whether it requires an existing chain, or whether it fails on an already-concluded chain. 'Mark as completed' hints at a state mutation but no consequences are disclosed.
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 9-word sentence with no waste and the key action front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the gaps elsewhere.
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 terminal mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter coverage, the description is too thin. It omits preconditions, state effects, and error behavior that an agent would need.
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 coverage is 50%: the 'conclusion' parameter is documented in the schema, but 'chainId' is not. The description adds nothing about parameter formats or constraints, so it relies entirely on the schema's partial documentation.
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 verb and a resource ('mark a research chain as completed') with some scope ('final synthesis'), but it does not distinguish this from siblings like research.add_step or research.recall_chain beyond the word 'completed'. An agent could confuse it with simply adding a finishing step.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no mention of when not to call it, and no pointer to sibling tools such as research.add_step or research.recall_chain. The agent must infer the terminal nature of this operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.