Build a sparse table from an array to answer range minimum or maximum queries in O(1) time.
Build a sparse table for O(1) range minimum/maximum queries.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | "min" or "max" (default min) | |
| values | Yes | Input array | |
| queries | Yes | Array of [left, right] pairs |
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 burden. It says what the tool builds but does not disclose whether it returns a data structure, executes queries, or returns results, nor does it mention performance characteristics beyond O(1) queries, memory usage, or any side effects. It is silent on the output and operational 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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the core action and the key benefit. No wasted words and it efficiently conveys the essential purpose.
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?
There is no output schema, no annotations, and the description does not explain what the tool returns or how the built table is used. For a tool that likely returns a data structure or query results, omitting the return behavior and any usage constraints leaves significant gaps for an agent to call it correctly.
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 coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters including the mode default and the format of queries. The description adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 specific verb ('Build') and resource ('sparse table') and names the exact purpose: O(1) range minimum/maximum queries. It clearly conveys what the tool does, distinguishing it from generic array tools. No sibling differentiation is needed here because there is no close alternative among siblings.
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 implies the tool is used for range min/max queries, but it doesn't state when to choose it over other possible approaches (e.g., segment trees, prefix arrays) or mention prerequisites or input constraints. Usage is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.