Compile verified code context for any query and log its Work Graph receipt to ensure traceable, reliable AI agent context.
Compile verified code context and record its Work Graph receipt.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | ||
| project | No | ||
| agent_id | No | ||
| max_hops | No | ||
| session_id | No | ||
| token_budget | No | ||
| max_fragments | No | ||
| workstream_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.62Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a side effect ('record its Work Graph receipt') and a quality aspect ('verified'), but it does not explain whether this modifies state, what prerequisites exist, whether the operation can fail, or what occurs after compilation.
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 main action, but it is so terse that it omits essential context. It reads as a label rather than a structurally organized tool summary, and its brevity does not offset the missing detail for a complex eight-parameter tool.
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?
The tool is complex, has no annotations, and has undocumented parameters. Although an output schema exists, the description does not cover what inputs mean, when the tool should be used, or what side effects besides the receipt may occur. The context is insufficient for reliable agent invocation.
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%, and the description provides no meaning for any of the eight parameters. Even the required `query` parameter is not explained, and the rich parameters like `max_hops`, `token_budget`, and `workstream_id` are left entirely undefined.
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 a specific verb ('compile') and resource ('verified code context'), and adds the outcome of recording a Work Graph receipt. It differentiates somewhat from siblings like work_record_context and compile_docs, though it does not explicitly clarify how it relates to those 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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many similar sibling tools such as work_record_context, create_context_receipt, and compile_docs, the absence of any selection criteria leaves the agent to guess.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.