context-crystal

by oswaldo

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Local

crystal_checkpoint

Create an anchor checkpoint node in a crystal DAG to mark and summarize key states for deterministic context tracking.

Instructions

Create an anchor checkpoint node in the crystal DAG.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "crystal_id": "<crystal_id>",
      "summary": "<summary>"
    },
    "name": "crystal_checkpoint"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`anchor`	No	Optional anchor tag name
`summary`	Yes	Checkpoint summary
`fidelity`	No	Fidelity: full, selective, summary
`crystal_id`	Yes	Crystal identifier

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 30, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden yet discloses nothing about effects: whether the checkpoint is reversible, what permissions are required, how it interacts with the DAG, or what fidelity actually changes. 'Create an anchor checkpoint node' restates the operation without behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single efficient sentence with the core operation front-loaded and no filler. It is arguably too terse for a mutation tool, but it wastes no words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a rich 4-parameter surface, the description is far too thin. It omits what a checkpoint does to the DAG, side effects, and any return or error behavior an agent would need.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (anchor, summary, fidelity, crystal_id) are already documented in the schema, making a baseline of 3 appropriate. The description adds no syntax, format, or meaning beyond what the schema provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (create) and resource (anchor checkpoint node) within the crystal DAG, so the basic operation is unambiguous. However, it offers no differentiation from the many crystal_* siblings such as crystal_artifact or crystal_slice_fork, and 'anchor checkpoint node' remains jargon-heavy.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no indication of when to create a checkpoint versus using siblings like crystal_artifact, crystal_slice_fork, or the transition tools. No prerequisites, triggers, or exclusions are mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.