Builds a query-based observation by linking facts with sources and derived_from edges, and returns the derivation chain for each result.
Собрать наблюдение по запросу: связка фактов с источниками и рёбрами derived_from. Ответ указывает, из чего выведен.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| k | No | ||
| save | No | ||
| query | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. Critically, it does not reveal that the tool writes to the store by default (save defaults to true in the schema), nor does it describe permissions, side effects, or reversibility — significant omissions for what is apparently a mutating operation.
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?
A single compact sentence with the core action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though brevity here borders on under-specification rather than genuine 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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the description leaves major gaps for a 3-parameter tool with zero annotation coverage: the semantics of k and save, and the default write behavior, are all missing.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only maps to the 'query' parameter implicitly; the 'k' (result count, default 8) and 'save' (persistence, default true) parameters are entirely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving two of three parameters unexplained.
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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Собрать наблюдение по запросу') and adds the derived_from edge-linking detail, which hints at what the tool produces. However, it never distinguishes this from close siblings like soma_recall, soma_claim, or soma_verify, so an agent cannot confidently separate it from related memory tools.
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 guidance on when to use this versus soma_recall, soma_claim, or soma_remember — all plausible alternatives in the sibling list. The 'по запросу' phrasing implies a query-driven operation but no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.