Initialize a new context crystal by providing a name and goal, with optional initial tasks, author, and intent.
Initialize a new context crystal.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| goal | Yes | Title/goal of the crystal | |
| name | Yes | Crystal identifier | |
| tasks | No | Optional initial acceptance criteria / tasks | |
| author | No | Optional author name | |
| intent | No | Optional detailed intent |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. It does not say whether initialization persists state, whether the name must be unique, what happens on a duplicate name, or whether the crystal becomes active immediately. 'New' implies creation, but nothing beyond that is conveyed.
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 short sentence with zero waste and the action front-loaded. But at this length it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise, leaving the agent with no more information than the tool name alone provides.
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 five-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It omits uniqueness constraints, side effects, and any indication of what is returned, so an agent cannot call it with confidence about outcomes.
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 all five parameters (name, goal, tasks, author, intent) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond it, which places it at the baseline of 3 for fully-covered schemas.
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 verb ('Initialize') and resource ('context crystal'), which is enough to separate it from crystal_delete, crystal_melt, and crystal_list. However, 'context crystal' is undefined domain jargon and the description offers no differentiation from creation-adjacent siblings like crystal_hydrate or crystal_slice_fork, so the agent must infer the distinction.
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 tool versus alternatives, no stated prerequisites, and no mention of when it should not be used. With 15 siblings all sharing the 'crystal' prefix, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.