Identify normative and informative reference relationships between RFC documents to understand dependencies and connections within technical specifications.
Get RFC reference relationships (normative/informative).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rfc | Yes | RFC number | |
| includeReferencedBy | No | Include RFCs that reference this RFC |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.5Input schema / properties / includeReferencedBy / descriptionPrevious value: -"この RFC を参照している RFC も含めるか"New value: +"Include RFCs that reference this RFC"Input schema / properties / rfc / descriptionPrevious value: -"RFC 番号"New value: +"RFC number"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does, not how it behaves. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what format the relationships are returned in, whether there are rate limits, or what happens with invalid RFC numbers.
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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for this simple tool and front-loads the core purpose immediately.
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 simple read operation with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, without annotations or output schema, it should ideally provide more behavioral context about what's returned and any constraints.
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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters completely. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score for high schema coverage.
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 states the verb ('Get') and resource ('RFC reference relationships') with specific relationship types ('normative/informative'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_rfc_structure' by focusing on dependencies rather than structure, but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_related_sections' which might have overlapping functionality.
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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_related_sections' or 'get_requirements'. The description implies it's for dependency analysis but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.