Filter femtech information sources by jurisdiction, language, topic, authority tier, and status. Merges seed and saved registry entries to produce a combined list.
管轄・言語・トピック・権威の格・状態でレジストリを絞って一覧。seed と保存済みをマージ。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | ||
| topic | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| jurisdiction | No | ||
| authority_tier | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
It reveals the behavioral detail of merging seed and saved entries. Annotations indicate read-only and non-destructive, which is consistent. No hidden side effects are mentioned, but the annotations cover the safety profile.
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 concise sentence that conveys the core purpose without unnecessary detail.
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?
It does not specify the output format or explain what 'merge seed and saved' means in practice. There is no output schema, and the expected return type (e.g., array of entries) is not stated, though it is implied by 'list.'
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?
The description lists the filter criteria in Japanese (jurisdiction, language, topic, authority level, status) but does not explicitly map them to the English parameter names (lang, topic, status, jurisdiction, authority_tier). Schema has no parameter descriptions, so the description partially compensates but leaves room for ambiguity.
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 clearly states the tool lists the registry with optional filters and mentions merging seed and saved data. It is distinct from get_registry_entry, which likely returns a single entry, though it does not explicitly contrast them.
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 this is for listing/filtering registries but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over sibling tools like get_registry_entry. The sibling names provide context but the description itself lacks direct guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.