Find stored propositions by ID or case-insensitive assertion text. Retrieve IDs, snapshot IDs, and texts for discovery, then use memory context to determine warrant.
Find stored propositions by id or assertion text (case-insensitive substring). Returns ids, latest snapshot ids, and assertion texts. Discovery only: it does not say what is warranted; call ewp_memory_context next.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses case-insensitive substring matching, the return fields (ids, latest snapshot ids, assertion texts), and the notable limitation that it does not determine warrant. The 'Find' verb and 'Discovery only' strongly imply a read-only operation. It stops short of stating side effects, ordering, or pagination, but these are less critical for a search tool.
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 two tight sentences with no filler. The main purpose and return values are front-loaded, and the caveat plus follow-up tool are given efficiently in the second sentence. Every sentence earns its place.
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 search tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, query semantics, return fields, and boundary of responsibility, and it names the next step. It does not disclose the default limit behavior or what happens when `query` is omitted, which are minor but relevant gaps given there is no output schema.
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%, so the description must compensate. It clearly explains the `query` parameter via 'by id or assertion text (case-insensitive substring)'. However, the `limit` parameter is not mentioned at all; its behavior and default value are left to inference. This is partial compensation, not complete.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Find stored propositions by id or assertion text', and lists what is returned. It also distinguishes itself from sibling ewp_memory_context by explicitly saying it does not say what is warranted and pointing the agent to call ewp_memory_context next. This clearly differentiates its role among the sibling 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 phrase 'Discovery only' tells the agent when this tool is appropriate, and the explicit instruction 'call ewp_memory_context next' routes to the correct alternative when warrant information is needed. This provides clear usage context and an exclusion condition without leaving it to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.