Sends a validated raw System One request with arbitrary JSON state and questions to a Jev-compatible service, enabling context compaction, completion checks, and decision tasks like screening or gating.
Validated raw System One request; state is arbitrary JSON. This is not an OpenAI chat-completions endpoint.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model | No | ||
| state | Yes | ||
| questions | Yes |
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, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations; 'Validated raw System One request' is unclear and does not disclose any side effects, return format, or error behavior. It does not contradict annotations, but it also does not enrich them.
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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It fails to convey essential information in the limited space, so the brevity is not a strength.
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 three parameters, no output schema, and zero schema coverage, the description is wholly inadequate. An agent has no idea what the tool does, how to format the request, or what to expect in response. This is a complex query tool that requires substantial documentation.
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 explain the parameters, but it says nothing about 'state', 'questions', or 'model'. The schema only lists them as required/optional with basic types, but no semantic meaning is provided. The agent cannot infer what values to pass or how they affect the request.
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 says 'Validated raw System One request' but does not state what the tool actually does with the state and questions. It is not a tautology, but it is vague and does not clearly identify the operation or distinguish it from the many sibling tools. The negative clarification about OpenAI chat-completions does not define the tool's purpose.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. The only hint is a negative statement ('not an OpenAI chat-completions endpoint'), which does not help an agent decide when to call this tool. No context, prerequisites, or alternative routing is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.