Acquire qualified MAIN graphs with a fenced attachment census, requiring expected_generation and an explicit main transaction to keep reads consistent.
Acquire qualified MAIN graphs with a fenced attachment census. expected_generation is required with an explicit main tx; provider clocks are never a global transaction.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tx | No | ||
| graphs | Yes | ||
| max_bytes | No | ||
| source_store_id | Yes | ||
| expected_generation | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.17.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds cryptic transaction/generation constraints, but it also says expected_generation is required with an explicit main tx while the schema does not list either as required, making the behavioral guidance unreliable.
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 and front-loads the action, but the jargon makes it hard to parse. It is concise without being clear, so structure is only adequate.
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 five-parameter tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the definition is far too thin. It omits what graphs, source_store_id, and max_bytes mean, what the return value is, and how this differs from quipu_acquire.
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 explain all five parameters. It only gestures at expected_generation and tx, and does so inconsistently with the schema's required list, while source_store_id, graphs, and max_bytes are left unexplained.
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 verb and resource ('Acquire ... graphs'), but 'qualified MAIN graphs' and 'fenced attachment census' are undefined jargon. It does not distinguish this tool from the sibling quipu_acquire, leaving the agent unsure what is actually being acquired.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus quipu_acquire or other graph-related siblings. The sentence about expected_generation and main tx is a constraint, not a usage rule or exclusion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.