Log an idea that was checked and ruled out, including the reason, so research agents avoid re-exploring disproven paths.
Record an idea that was checked and ruled out, so it isn't re-explored.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | ||
| reason | Yes | Why it was ruled out | |
| entities | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| text | Yes | ||
| reason | Yes | ||
| entity_ids | Yes | ||
| session_id | Yes | ||
| recorded_at | Yes | ||
| withdrawn_at | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world write, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful effect that recorded items are meant to suppress future re-exploration, but says nothing about where the record surfaces (e.g., via recall), duplicate handling, or whether it can be undone.
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 tight sentence that front-loads the action and its justification. Nothing wasted, nothing buried.
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 output schema covers return values, so that burden is lifted, and the core action is understandable. Still, for a knowledge-graph write that affects later recall, the description omits how records are keyed/deduplicated and how they interact with the surrounding record_*/recall tools.
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 coverage is only 33% — only 'reason' is documented. The description does not clarify what 'text' should contain (the hypothesis statement itself?) or what 'entities' is for, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented parameters that the schema leaves bare.
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 gives a specific verb ("record") and a precise resource ("an idea that was checked and ruled out"), plus the intent behind it ("so it isn't re-explored"). That distinguishes it from siblings like record_claim or record_evidence, which capture accepted knowledge rather than negative results, though the distinction is implied rather than stated.
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 condition for use is implied clearly enough — call this when an idea has already been checked and ruled out. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it, how it relates to record_claim/record_evidence, or whether the same hypothesis can be re-recorded, so the agent must infer the boundary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.