Interpret divergent clusters as typed inferences, with optional scope narrowing by districts, namespaces, or session to refine reasoning.
AGORA exegesis: the divergent cluster as a typed inference (narrowing scope optional).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| districts | No | ||
| sessionId | No | ||
| namespaces | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses no side effects, no read-only vs mutating nature, no auth requirements, no return format, and no error behavior. The jargon 'typed inference' speculatively suggests analysis, but the description never states what happens when the tool is invoked.
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 short, but brevity here is under-specification, not conciseness — the one sentence is 10 jargon-heavy words that fail to inform. Every word should earn its place, and none of these words clarifies purpose, behavior, or parameters for an agent.
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 tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and a large sibling set requiring differentiation, this description is critically incomplete. An agent has no basis to invoke the tool correctly, interpret arguments, or understand results.
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 three undocumented parameters (districts, sessionId, namespaces). The only possible hint, 'narrowing scope optional,' does not map to any specific parameter or explain what these values mean. An agent cannot infer what 'districts' or 'namespaces' contain or how sessionId is used.
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 uses opaque jargon — 'AGORA exegesis', 'divergent cluster', 'typed inference' — with no clear verb or resource. 'Exegesis' is a noun, not an action, so an agent cannot determine what operation this tool performs. It is not a bare tautology, but the added words convey no concrete meaning to an agent that must select among 38 sibling tools.
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 guidance is given on when to use this tool vs alternatives. With siblings like noetic.query, noetic.diff, noetic.observe, and noetic.ground, there is no indication of what distinguishes 'reason' from them or what condition should trigger its use. 'Narrowing scope optional' hints at parameter usage but says nothing about tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.