Maintain the behavior runtime database by running diagnostics, auditing SHA-256 Merkle integrity, creating snapshots, comparing diffs, and restoring checkpoints.
Database maintenance, diagnostics, SHA-256 Merkle audit verification, checkpoints save/restore, and diffs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| action | Yes | ||
| project | No | ||
| description | 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 full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions restore and maintenance, implying potential mutation or side effects, but does not clarify reversibility, permissions, destructive potential, or what the audit/snapshot/diff operations produce.
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 compact sentence with no filler. It is efficiently sized, though it front-loads a list rather than a clear action statement.
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 tool with four parameters, an action enum, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It does not explain how to construct a valid call, what each action entails, expected return values, or side effects, leaving an agent uncertain when invoking it.
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%, so the description must compensate for all parameter meaning. It does not explain the role of name, project, or description, and only loosely maps the action enum values to capabilities without detailing parameter relationships or requirements.
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?
The description enumerates the tool's capabilities (maintenance, diagnostics, SHA-256 Merkle audit, checkpoints, diffs), which clearly identifies the resource and general purpose. It is distinct from sibling tools focused on behaviors, parameters, status, triggers, and metrics, though it lacks a direct verb+object statement.
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 is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not state preferred conditions, exclusions, or which sibling tools might be better suited for related tasks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.