Detect discrepancies between your README, docs, or examples and the live registry to ensure documentation stays accurate, identifying outdated or inconsistent information before it misleads users.
Compare README/docs/examples against the live registry
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| docs_path | No | Docs path | README.md |
| include_legacy | No | Include legacy |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the comparison operation and scope, but does not state whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, how the live registry is accessed, or what side effects might occur.
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 one compact, front-loaded sentence with no filler; every word contributes to defining the task. It is appropriately sized, even if other dimensions are underexplained.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description should at least hint at the result shape, the meaning of drift, or what 'live registry' refers to. It only provides the action and target, leaving the agent to guess invocation expectations.
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% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description loosely aligns with docs_path by mentioning README/docs/examples, but it adds no additional meaning about include_legacy or path expectations beyond the schema.
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 uses a clear verb-resource pair: 'Compare README/docs/examples against the live registry' and distinguishes it from siblings like coeus_generate_docs by signaling a comparison rather than generation. It is clear, though 'live registry' is left undefined and no sibling is explicitly contrasted, so it stops short of a 5.
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 states what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to select it over similar tools like coeus_healthcheck, coeus_runtime_diagnostics, or coeus_generate_docs. There are no conditions, exclusions, or alternative routing hints, so the usage context must be inferred entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.