solodot-mcp

Generate the routed execution asset

generate_execution_asset

Generates a preview execution asset for the pack selected by route_painpoint. Use to create a concrete, review-only asset without changing the routed pack.

Instructions

Generate one concrete, preview-only execution asset for the pack already selected by route_painpoint. The routed pack cannot be changed by this tool.

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": {
      "runId": "<runId>"
    },
    "name": "generate_execution_asset"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`runId`	Yes
`corrections`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds that the asset is 'preview-only' and that the pack cannot be changed, which provides useful but limited further context about side effects. No mention of auth or rate limits.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two sentences and front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence adds value without fluff or redundancy.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool has 2 parameters and no output schema. The description states the pack is selected by route_painpoint, but does not describe the output format, what corrections are for, or what to do after generation. Given the complexity, more context would be helpful.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The tool description does not explain the meaning or usage of 'runId' or 'corrections' beyond what the schema defines (e.g., lengths). This forces the agent to infer parameter semantics.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool generates a preview-only execution asset for a pack selected by route_painpoint, using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like route_painpoint (selection) and review_execution_asset (review).

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description specifies that this tool should be used after route_painpoint and that the pack cannot be changed, providing clear context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives among siblings.

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

Deploy Server