Register a document bundle under a short slug alias for quick referencing. Map any folder path to a slug, then access its content as @slug/... in OKF operations.
Add a bundle under a slug alias. Then reference it as @/... .
Example:
okf_registry_add(slug="docs", bundle_path="C:/Users/me/Documents/okf")
okf_get_concept("@docs/readme")
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | ||
| bundle_path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.14.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It indicates a mutating operation ('Add') and the resulting alias-reference behavior, but it does not disclose what happens if the slug already exists, whether the operation is persistent, or what errors or side effects may occur.
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 concise and front-loaded with the main action, then immediately provides a concrete usage example. The example earns its place by clarifying parameter meaning and expected invocation style.
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 simple two-parameter tool, the description is reasonably complete: it states the action, defines the alias concept, and demonstrates usage. However, it does not mention return values, overwrite behavior, or failure conditions, and there is no output schema to compensate for those omissions.
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?
The input schema provides only parameter titles with no descriptions, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds meaning by defining the concept of a slug alias and showing an example where slug='docs' and bundle_path is a local directory path. This is helpful but still leaves some semantic details implicit.
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 clearly states the tool's action: adding a bundle under a slug alias, and shows how to reference it afterward. It is specific about the verb ('Add') and resource ('bundle under a slug alias'), though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling registry tools.
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 example strongly implies when to use the tool: register a bundle under a short alias so it can be referenced as @<slug>/... . However, it does not explicitly explain when not to use it or mention alternatives like okf_registry_remove or okf_registry_resolve.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.