Preview the outcome of relinking external references using a mapping file that defines old and new paths, including when files were renamed.
Preview relinks from an explicit old->new mapping file, useful when files were also renamed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| document_id | No | ||
| mapping_path | No |
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 implies a non-destructive 'preview' action but does not explicitly state that no changes are applied, what the output format is, or any side effects. It also doesn't mention error conditions or prerequisites like file access requirements. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 a single, compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and includes a useful context cue. However, it is concise to the point of under-specification, but that is a completeness issue rather than a structure issue, so conciseness itself is well-executed.
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?
With no output schema, no annotations, and only 2 parameters, the description must carry substantial context. It fails to explain the tool's behavior, return values, or how it differs from the many sibling relink tools. An agent cannot confidently decide when to use it or how to invoke it correctly. This is critically incomplete.
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 does not explain either parameter. It mentions 'mapping file' which likely maps to mapping_path, but document_id is completely unexplained. An agent cannot determine what values to pass or how they affect behavior, making the tool nearly unusable without external knowledge.
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 clear purpose: 'Preview relinks from an explicit old->new mapping file'. It also adds a contextual note ('useful when files were also renamed') that helps distinguish it from other preview relink tools, though it doesn't name alternatives. It is specific about the resource and verb.
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 description provides only a weak usage hint ('useful when files were also renamed') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the many sibling relink/preview tools. No exclusions or alternatives are named, leaving the agent to infer the selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.