Retrieve all atomic ground-truth axioms and metadata for a Small World handle or UUID, so agents can inspect a world's verified foundations before reasoning or verification.
Retrieve all atomic ground-truth axioms and metadata for a given Small World handle or ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| world_id_or_handle | Yes | Small World handle (e.g. '@pravo:obcansky-zakonik-cz') or UUID. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden; 'Retrieve' establishes this is a read-only fetch and 'all atomic ground-truth axioms' signals an unfiltered, complete return set. It does not disclose volume, pagination, ordering, or any permission requirements, which matters for a 'retrieve all' call against a document collection.
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?
One sentence with zero filler, front-loading the verb and the returned content before the input qualifier. It is efficient but arguably undersized, since some of the freed space could have been spent on routing to siblings.
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 single-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers what is fetched and what identifier to supply. It leaves gaps around what an 'atomic axiom' looks like in the response, whether results are bounded, and how this differs from syntropy_verify on the same world.
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% and the single parameter is documented with both a handle example ('@pravo:obcansky-zakonik-cz') and the UUID alternative. The description only restates that a handle or ID is accepted, adding no format or resolution behavior beyond the schema; 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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and a clearly named resource ('atomic ground-truth axioms and metadata') scoped to a Small World handle or ID. An agent can distinguish it from syntropy_list_worlds (enumeration) and syntropy_verify (validation), though it never explicitly states those contrasts.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no sibling tool is referenced, so the agent must infer that this is the fetch-by-identifier path rather than the verification or listing path. The only contextual clue is that it takes a handle or ID, which is a parameter fact rather than usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.