wyea_checkChecks a GitHub issue once, without waiting, for new or edited comments since the last seen baseline; returns baseline:false when no baseline exists.
기다리지 않고 기준(seen) 대비 새 댓글·수정된 댓글을 한 번 확인합니다. 기준이 없으면 baseline:false 를 돌려줍니다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| issue | Yes | GitHub 이슈 번호(비공개 레포 ) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses genuinely useful behavioral traits: the operation is non-blocking, it is single-shot ('한 번'), it compares against a 'seen' baseline, and it returns baseline:false when no baseline exists. It does not state whether the call itself advances/consumes the baseline, which is a notable gap for a stateful check.
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?
Two compact sentences with the non-blocking constraint front-loaded, and the fallback return case stated second. No filler, though the sentence density around the 'seen' baseline could be slightly clearer.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-contract burden, and it only partially does so (it names baseline:false but not the normal result shape). It also omits whether the baseline is updated on a successful check. Adequate but with clear gaps for a stateful polling tool.
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 100% for the single 'issue' parameter, so the schema already carries the parameter meaning. The description introduces the '기준(seen)' baseline concept, but 'seen' is not an input parameter, so it does not deepen parameter semantics; baseline 3 applies.
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 (확인/check) and resource (새 댓글·수정된 댓글, new/edited comments) and adds a key scope qualifier: it does not wait (기다리지 않고). This implicitly distinguishes it from the blocking sibling wyea_wait, but no sibling is named explicitly, so differentiation is inferred 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?
The phrase '기다리지 않고' (without waiting) implies the use case is a non-blocking poll as opposed to a waiting tool, and it covers the no-baseline case. However it never explicitly states when to choose this over wyea_wait or wyea_snapshot, leaving the routing guidance implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.