Resolve a slash-separated page path into existing and missing tree segments, so LeafWiki clients can check which pages exist before reading or editing.
Resolve a path into tree segments.
Args: path: Slash-separated page path to resolve.
Returns: Existing and missing path segments.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a non-obvious behavioral trait — that the result includes both existing and missing segments — but says nothing about read-only nature, permissions, path-format validation, or error behavior for malformed paths.
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 purpose is front-loaded in the first line, and the Args/Returns sections are brief with no filler. The Args/Returns scaffolding is slightly formulaic but every line carries information.
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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema already documenting the return shape, the description covers purpose, parameter format, and result semantics adequately. The missing piece is sibling routing against ensure_path/browse_tree.
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% (the only property, 'path', has just a type), so the description must compensate. It does: 'Slash-separated page path to resolve' supplies the expected format that the schema omits.
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 clear verb+resource: 'Resolve a path into tree segments', which tells an agent exactly what the tool operates on. It lacks any differentiation from near-siblings like ensure_path or browse_tree, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.
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 when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative. An agent must infer from the name that this is a read-only existence check as opposed to ensure_path (which presumably creates missing segments), and the description never clarifies that relationship.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.