Retrieve a reconciliation service manifest or resolve keyed query objects without merging entities, enabling identifier matching while keeping records separate.
Get the reconciliation service manifest or resolve keyed query objects without merging entities.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| queries | 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, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact beyond that: the operation does not merge entities, which reassures the agent no state change occurs. It does not explain the dual manifest/resolve behavior, what the manifest contains, or what happens when queries is omitted.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. The only structural weakness is the 'or' that joins two unrelated modes, which forces the reader to parse ambiguity rather than read a clean statement of purpose.
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?
Incorrect placeholder — recomputing: the tool has two indistinct modes, a fully undocumented nested object parameter, no output schema, and many near-neighbor siblings. The description covers none of the mode-selection logic, so it is not complete for this complexity.
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 0% and the single 'queries' parameter is an undescribed nested object, so the description must carry the burden. The phrase 'keyed query objects' faintly hints that queries is a map of key-to-query, but it gives no key format, value shape, or example, leaving the nested object effectively undocumented.
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 names two distinct behaviors ('get the reconciliation service manifest' OR 'resolve keyed query objects'), which is a specific verb+resource but leaves the agent unsure which mode it will get. It does distinguish from merging ('without merging entities'), yet never names the closest siblings such as quipu_merge_resolve or quipu_resolve_entity that an agent would naturally compare against.
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 only usage signal is the negative constraint 'without merging entities', with no statement of when to pick this over quipu_merge_resolve, quipu_resolve_entity, or quipu_merge_decisions. No prerequisites, no indication of when the manifest is returned versus when queries are resolved.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.