cq_zones_source_infoRetrieves provenance for the CQ zones list: owner, edition, terms, and source file URLs with SHA-256 hashes for verification and citation.
Who owns this list, which edition is served, its terms, and the owner's files' URLs and SHA-256s.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description provides rich behavioral context by listing the highly specific technical data points it returns, such as 'owner's files' URLs and SHA-256s. This goes beyond simple read/write status provided by the annotations.
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 definition is highly concise, delivering all necessary context in a single, direct sentence without unnecessary filler or jargon.
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?
Given that there are zero input parameters, the description is highly complete, as it informs the agent exactly what specific knowledge is returned upon invocation.
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?
Since the tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description provides no functional value over the structured data. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate for metadata-only descriptions.
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 clearly defines the function as retrieving specific metadata (ownership, edition, terms, URLs, and SHA-256s). While it doesn't distinguish its purpose relative to all siblings, it clearly specifies the nature of the 'source info' provided.
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 description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus similar tools like cq_zones_lookup or cq_zones_search. It relies entirely on the agent inferring the correct use case based on the description's content.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.