Identify common notes by intersecting two sets of primary keys, reloaded for the current session, to find overlaps and shared references.
intersect two Note sets, identified by primary keys and reloaded for this session.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| left | Yes | ||
| right | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only adds the vague phrase 'identified by primary keys and reloaded for this session.' It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what side effects occur, or how the resulting Note set is returned.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler; 'intersect two Note sets' appears first and carries the core meaning. The trailing clause is compact but somewhat cryptic, though the overall length is appropriate.
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 tool has no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, leaving the description as the only invocation context. It fails to define the return value, the exact semantics of left/right, or edge-case behavior, so the agent must make several assumptions.
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 0%, so the description must clarify the left and right string arrays, but it never explicitly says each array contains note primary keys. The phrase 'identified by primary keys' hints at this, yet it remains ambiguous and does not explain expected format, duplicates, or ordering.
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 concrete operation — 'intersect two Note sets' — with a clear resource and action, and the action differentiates it from sibling tools like union_note and subtract_note. However, it does not define what a 'Note set' is or what the returned result represents, so it is not fully self-contained.
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 offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool or how it compares to union_note, subtract_note, or aggregate_note. The word 'intersect' implies a use case, but the agent is left to infer selection criteria from the tool name and siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.