Perform version-controlled get and set operations on an array using a persistent segment tree, enabling access to and modification of historical array states by version.
Persistent array with version-controlled get/set operations using a persistent segment tree.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| initial | Yes | Initial array values | |
| operations | Yes | Operations: {type:'get'|'set', version, index, value?} |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.11Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It mentions persistence and version-controlled get/set operations, but does not explain what the tool returns, how get/set results are reported, whether set creates a new version, or any error behavior.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no redundant or filler content. Every clause contributes to identifying the tool's domain and mechanism.
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 annotations and no output schema, the description should explain the return format or operation semantics, but it does not. For a tool with nested operation objects and versioned behavior, this leaves key invocation details unstated.
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%, so the schema already documents both parameters and the operation object shape. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline 3.
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 names a specific resource (persistent array) and the operations it supports (version-controlled get/set), making the tool's function reasonably clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the many other data-structure tools in the sibling list, such as segment_tree or fenwick_tree, so it stops short of a 5.
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 description provides no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives. An agent must infer that this tool is for versioned array operations from the description alone, with no routing help.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.