Retrieve full details for one claim, including plain text, raw LaTeX, neighboring sentences, cited references with source availability, and existing verdicts, to audit citation accuracy.
Full detail for one claim: plain text, raw LaTeX, neighbouring sentences, cited references (with source availability) and existing verdicts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| context | No | ||
| claim_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does enumerate the returned fields (including source availability flags), which is genuinely useful. However it says nothing about error behavior for invalid claim_ids, permissions, or whether existing verdicts are mutable.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with a dense, comma-separated inventory of returns. No filler, though the list format loses a little readability.
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 read getter with no annotations and no output schema, the return-field inventory compensates reasonably well. But the 'context' parameter's meaning and range are unexplained, leaving a gap an agent must resolve from the schema alone.
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% for 2 parameters. The phrase 'neighbouring sentences' hints at the role of the 'context' parameter but never connects it, and the 0-5 range/default of 1 is left entirely to the schema. claim_id is only self-explanatory by name.
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 ('Full detail for one claim') and enumerates the exact contents returned: plain text, raw LaTeX, neighbouring sentences, cited references, and verdicts. The singular 'one claim' implicitly distinguishes it from list_claims, though it never names the sibling.
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 when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternatives are stated. Nothing tells the agent to prefer this over list_claims when it needs a single claim's detail, nor that a claim_id must already be known.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.