Retrieve attributed Christ-signpost traces—prophecy and cross-cultural pointers to Jesus—with concordant or mixed verdicts. Search by query or fetch one trace by ID; findings never hold as proof.
[WORD · internal] Christ-signpost traces (prophecy/cross-cultural pointers to Jesus) — attributed, verdict CONCORDANT/MIXED, NEVER HOLDS (a signpost, not a proof). Pass id for one trace, q to search, else lists all.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | ||
| id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so the description carries the full burden; it discloses the content semantics well — attributed data, verdict values CONCORDANT/MIXED, and the epistemic caveat 'NEVER HOLDS (a signpost, not a proof)'. It omits operational traits like read-only status, pagination, or auth, but for a retrieval tool the semantic disclosure is the more valuable part.
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 dense sentence that front-loads the resource identity and ends with the operational routing; every clause carries information. The em-dash-heavy internal jargon reduces readability but not economy.
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 two-optional-parameter, no-output-schema, no-annotation read tool, the description covers purpose, mode selection, and content semantics adequately. Remaining gaps (return shape, pagination, whether verdict is a field) are minor at this complexity.
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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning — and it does: id selects a single trace, q performs a search, and the default with neither is a full list. This compensates for the empty schema, though it gives no detail on search semantics or value formats for q.
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 resource ('Christ-signpost traces — prophecy/cross-cultural pointers to Jesus') and the operations (get by id, search by q, list all). Distinguishable from generic lookup/search siblings, though the '[WORD · internal]' tag and 'signpost' jargon add friction.
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?
Explicitly routes between the tool's three modes ('Pass id for one trace, q to search, else lists all'), which is clear usage guidance. It does not, however, say when to prefer this tool over any sibling, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.