lookup_termRetrieves a released vocabulary term by exact key and suggests close matches when no exact entry exists.
Look a term up in the released vocabulary by exact key; otherwise suggest close keys.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| term | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds genuinely new behavior: on a miss it does not fail but returns close keys, which changes how an agent should interpret a result. It says nothing about match scoring or limits on suggestions, but with annotations doing the safety work this is solid.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the primary lookup and the fallback behavior appended. No redundant restatement of the title or name.
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 shape need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. The only remaining gap is the notion of 'released vocabulary' and key format, which a careful agent would still have to guess.
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?
One required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema says only 'Term'. The description compensates partially by indicating the value must be an exact key, but gives no format, casing, or namespacing detail for what a valid key looks like.
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 (look up) and resource (term in the released vocabulary) and pins down the matching mode as exact-key. The sibling list contains nothing overlapping, so differentiation is moot, but the purpose is unambiguous.
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 sentence implies the use case (exact key lookup with a suggestion fallback), but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over other lookups or what happens if the term is empty/ambiguous. Usage is inferred rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.