List known writers for a declaration by claim_id or qualname, with optional path filtering. Ambiguous names return candidates, helping trace source-linked authoring context.
List known writers by declaration claim_id or qualname plus optional path; ambiguous names return candidates. Partial coverage; fresh != correct; source is authoritative; stale should degrade to source.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | ||
| claim_id | No | ||
| qualname | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose non-obvious traits: ambiguity returns candidates and results are partial/degradable. However, the phrases 'fresh != correct' and 'stale should degrade to source' are cryptic and leave the actual retrieval/fallback behavior underspecified.
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?
Compact and front-loaded, with the core action leading. But the terse telegraphic fragments ('fresh != correct', 'stale should degrade to source') trade clarity for brevity, weakening the structure of an otherwise short definition.
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 3-param, no-annotation, no-output-schema read tool, the description covers lookup semantics and data-quality caveats but does not describe the return shape beyond 'candidates' or the fallback workflow it alludes to. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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, and it does name all three keys (claim_id, qualname, path) and flags path as optional. It gives no format or precedence rules (e.g., what happens if both claim_id and qualname are supplied), so the mapping is only partially meaningful.
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 specific verb+resource ('List known writers') and identifies the lookup keys (claim_id/qualname, optional path), which distinguishes it from tmf_readers and tmf_callers. It does not explicitly name the sibling it differs from, so the contrast is inferable rather than stated.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named. The 'ambiguous names return candidates' clause hints at behavior but is not routing guidance, and the quality caveats ('source is authoritative') are data warnings, not usage conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.