Store observation, declaration, and measurement objects into a space with authoritative ingestion. Enforces object cap by failing closed to prevent overflow.
Authoritative ingestion of context objects (observation|declaration|measurement) into a space; fails closed at the object cap.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| space | No | ||
| objects | No | ||
| sessionId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a meaningful behavioral trait: 'fails closed at the object cap,' which tells the agent the tool will reject writes when a limit is reached. However, it does not disclose whether ingestion is idempotent, whether it overwrites existing objects, or what happens on partial failure, leaving notable behavioral 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, dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and ends with the key failure behavior. It is concise and every phrase earns its place, though the parenthetical object-type list could arguably be moved to the schema.
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 3-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is too thin. An agent cannot tell what 'space' and 'sessionId' mean, what a successful response looks like, or how this ingestion relates to the many sibling tools. The 'fails closed' note is useful but insufficient for safe 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 three undocumented parameters. It explains that 'objects' are context objects of types observation|declaration|measurement, but it does not explain the 'space' or 'sessionId' parameters, nor their formats or requirements. The description adds some meaning for 'objects' but leaves most parameter semantics to inference.
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 verb ('ingestion') and resource ('context objects ... into a space'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the object types it ingests. It is clear but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like noetic.observe or noetic.mutate, so it loses a point for lack of explicit differentiation.
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 versus alternatives such as noetic.observe, noetic.mutate, or noetic.persist. The description implies a write/ingest operation but does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions that would route an agent to this tool over a sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.