Run a four-way comparison of data-cleaning recipes, separating data, recipe, and interaction effects, and write receipts and Parquet output to a new local folder.
Run an accepted four-way comparison and write receipts/Parquet to a new local folder.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| output | Yes | ||
| new_data | Yes | ||
| old_data | Yes | ||
| new_recipe | Yes | ||
| old_recipe | Yes |
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 behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose a key side effect: writing receipts/Parquet to a new local folder. But it does not explain whether the tool overwrites anything, what 'accepted' means, what permissions or environment it requires, or what happens on failure. This is partial transparency with clear gaps.
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. It opens with the action verb and packs the key artifact and destination into a compact form. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately sized for the amount of information it conveys.
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?
Given five required parameters, nested recipe objects, no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is far too thin. It leaves the agent to infer the meaning of all parameters, the prerequisite implied by 'accepted', and the tool's return or failure behavior. This is not enough for confident invocation.
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 compensate for the undocumented parameters. It only implies four inputs via 'four-way comparison' and maps 'output' to a local folder, but it does not clarify whether inputs are file paths or inline data, what formats are expected, or how the recipe objects should be structured. This does not meaningfully fill the schema gap.
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 action ('Run an accepted four-way comparison') and a concrete output ('write receipts/Parquet to a new local folder'). It moves beyond the tool name and gives a clear sense of what the tool does. However, it never explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like proofmill_validate or proofmill_explain, and the word 'accepted' is vague.
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 compared to proofmill_validate, proofmill_explain, or proofmill_profile. The term 'accepted' hints at a prerequisite, but it does not say what must happen before this tool is called or what makes it the right choice over a sibling. There are no exclusions or alternatives named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.