Register, list, or retrieve immutable behavior tree definitions with SHA-256 hash verification for reliable AI agent execution.
CRUD operations for immutable JSON behavior tree definitions with SHA-256 tree hash verification.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| tree | No | ||
| action | Yes | ||
| project | No | ||
| version | No | ||
| tree_json | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| client_request_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose two meaningful behavioral traits: definitions are immutable and SHA-256 tree hashes are verified. However, it does not explain side effects, failure behavior on hash mismatch, authentication requirements, or what exactly 'CRUD' permits given immutability.
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, tight sentence that front-loads the resource and key constraints. It wastes no words, though it sacrifices enough detail that the agent still depends heavily on the schema.
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 an eight-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is not sufficient to invoke actions correctly. It captures the domain and immutability but misses action-specific requirements, parameter roles, response shape, and integrity-checking behavior.
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 0% and the tool description adds nothing about the eight parameters. The words 'JSON behavior tree definitions' only hint at tree/tree_json, and there is no explanation of action, name, project, version, description, or client_request_id.
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 that the tool does CRUD operations on JSON behavior tree definitions that are immutable and hash-verified, naming the central resource and a distinguishing integrity feature. It is clear enough to separate manage_behaviors from runtime-focused siblings like load_behavior or get_status, though 'CRUD' is broader than the actual register/list/get enum and does not explicitly name the sibling alternatives.
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?
No guidance on when to choose this tool over load_behavior, set_parameters, or manage_runtime_db. The description implies a management role for behavior definitions but never states prerequisites, use cases, or commands that should be routed elsewhere.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.