Retrieve axiomatic formal kernels, scholar lineages with Wikidata QIDs, and structured dialectical disputes by concept ID to prevent shallow syntheses.
Retrieve axiomatic formal kernels, scholar lineages with Wikidata QIDs, and 3+ structured dialectical disputes to prevent shallow syntheses.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| concept_id | Yes | Canonical concept identifier (e.g. 'VS-PHIL-001', 'VS-SOC-001'). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Retrieve' implies a read, but the description never states that it is non-mutating, what happens if a concept lacks disputes or lineages, whether a minimum of '3+' disputes is guaranteed, or what the response looks like. It adds some content-shape information but leaves key behavioral traits undisclosed.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the enumerated payload list is the most useful part and appears immediately. It is dense in domain jargon, which slightly hurts first-pass comprehension, but nothing is redundant.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description must convey return shape, and it partially does by naming three content categories. It is silent on error cases, missing-data behavior, and result volume, which matter for a bundle-retrieval tool. Adequate but leaves real gaps given the absence of structured return documentation.
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?
There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage including example identifiers, so the schema already does the work. The description adds nothing about concept_id format or validity, but the 0-params/low-burden baseline applies and no compensation is needed.
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 (retrieve) and enumerates the payload types (formal kernels, scholar lineages with QIDs, dialectical disputes), which is more than a restatement of the name. However, 'inspect topography' is opaque jargon, and without knowing the domain an agent cannot immediately tell how this differs in role from veriscope_locate_evidence or veriscope_discover_concepts. Purpose is inferable but not crisply 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 trailing phrase 'to prevent shallow syntheses' implies a when-to-use context: call this before writing synthesis output. No explicit exclusions or named alternatives are given, and nothing says when another sibling is the better choice. Usage is implied rather than directed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.