Retrieve machine-readable engineering facts from a bounded EIR/1 packet. Use for project-scoped decisions, task checkpoints, and deterministic context across sessions.
Read a bounded EIR/1 engineering packet. Returns machine-readable facts without natural-language translation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | ||
| project_root | Yes | ||
| token_budget | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Read' wording aligns with that safety profile. It adds some behavioral context by noting the packet is 'bounded' and that output is machine-readable facts without NL translation, but it does not explain limits, errors, or what happens when the token budget is exceeded.
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 short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the additional return-format detail earns its place. Despite the unexplained acronym, the description is appropriately sized.
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 and three parameters at 0% schema coverage, the description needs to explain how to call the tool and what to expect. It only covers the general return style, leaving query semantics, token budget behavior, and the meaning of project_root largely to inference.
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 for the undocumented parameters. It does not explain project_root, query, or token_budget explicitly; 'bounded' hints at token_budget and 'engineering packet' hints at project_root, but these are too indirect to guide correct invocation.
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 verb and resource: 'Read a bounded EIR/1 engineering packet.' It also adds a distinguishing output trait, 'machine-readable facts without natural-language translation,' which helps separate it from natural-language-oriented memory tools. However, 'EIR/1' is unexplained and sibling differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.
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 instead of siblings like memory_recall or memory_status. The phrase 'engineering packet' weakly implies context, but there is no stated selection criterion, prerequisite, or exclusion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.