Build a sparse table to answer O(1) range minimum or maximum queries on a static numeric array, with optional inclusive [left, right] query pairs.
Build a sparse table for O(1) range minimum or maximum queries on a static array.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | Query mode: 'min' or 'max' (default: min) | |
| array | Yes | Array of numbers | |
| queries | No | Range queries as [left, right] pairs (inclusive) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.11Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the O(1) query time and the static-array constraint, which is useful, but it omits build/preprocessing complexity and does not clarify return behavior or side effects.
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 wasted words. It communicates the core algorithm task efficiently.
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?
The tool takes an array and optional queries, and has no output schema, so the description should ideally explain what is returned. It states the purpose but leaves the result shape and handling of the queries parameter implicit.
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 the mode, array, and queries parameters. The description adds the O(1) range-query context but no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.
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 and resource: build a sparse table for range minimum or maximum queries. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from closely related siblings such as rmq_sparse or segment_tree.
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?
Usage is implied by the mention of a static array and O(1) queries, suggesting when this structure is appropriate. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.