Resolve an overlay's composed view across its parent branch hierarchy, returning only asserted, non-tombstoned facts where the nearest or governed definition wins.
Resolve an overlay's composed view over [overlay > parent-branch-root]: asserted-and-not-tombstoned, nearest wins. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| overlay | Yes | Overlay graph IRI | |
| precedence | No | Overlay composition precedence (default: nearest). |
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, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so 'Read-only' merely restates them. The description does add real behavior beyond annotations — tombstone filtering ('asserted-and-not-tombstoned') and resolution order ('nearest wins') — but omits error behavior for unknown overlays and never explains the 'governed' mode, which indirectly conflicts with the blanket 'nearest wins' claim.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resolution rule is stated compactly. The bracket notation 'overlay > parent-branch-root' is cryptic enough that terseness costs some comprehension.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description should convey what a 'composed view' actually returns (shape, ordering, size), which it does not. For a 2-parameter read tool with full schema coverage this is adequate but leaves the return value and the 'governed' precedence mode underspecified.
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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, and the description adds nothing per-parameter beyond reinforcing 'nearest'. The 'governed' enum value is left unexplained in both schema and description, and the 'parent-branch-root' chain notation is not defined.
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?
States a specific verb ('Resolve') and resource ('an overlay's composed view'), and adds scope ('over [overlay > parent-branch-root]'). This is distinguishable from the write siblings quipu_overlay_create/quipu_overlay_write, though it does not explicitly contrast with quipu_acquire_composed, which sounds closely related.
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 when-to-use guidance and no exclusions or alternatives. The agent must infer that this is the read path for overlays versus quipu_overlay_write, and nothing tells it when composition should be queried rather than using quipu_acquire_composed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.