darc_dok_source_infoLook up who owns the DARC DOK list, which edition is served, its terms, and owner file URLs with SHA-256 hashes to verify source provenance and integrity.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only inspection of list metadata (owner, edition, terms, file integrity hashes) but never explicitly states it's non-mutating, whether the call needs authorization, or whether results are cached or live. The SHA-256s hint at a verification/integrity use case, which is useful context, but for a zero-annotation tool this leaves meaningful gaps.
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 clause-packed sentence that front-loads the resource (the list) and its owner. No filler or repetition, though the dense clause list is slightly hard to parse on first read.
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?
The tool has an output schema, so the description is not obligated to detail the return shape, and the fields it enumerates (owner, edition, terms, file URLs and SHA-256s) align with what an output schema would expose. What's missing is operation framing – the description reads as a list of fields rather than an action – and any sibling differentiation.
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?
With zero parameters there is nothing to document, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss inputs, which is correct for a parameterless tool.
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?
Names the resource (a 'list' in the Darc Dok source) and enumerates specific data points: owner, served edition, terms, and owner's files' URLs and SHA-256s. This is more specific than a tautology, but it never names a verb or operation – is this a query? A fetch? – and it doesn't differentiate itself from siblings like darc_dok_lookup or get_version_info, which could plausibly return overlapping information.
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 gives no when-to-use context and no comparison to alternatives. With five sibling tools, an agent has no signal for choosing this one without opening the schemas.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.