Retrieve verifiable answers from team knowledge captured in a markdown git repository. Uses Slack and CLI history to respond, and declines when evidence is insufficient.
Answer from ACL-visible team knowledge with citations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| question | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.10.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns citations, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not mention any access limitations, error conditions, or whether it is a read-only operation. Given the simplicity, a 3 is appropriate.
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, concise sentence that conveys the core purpose without any fluff. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.
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?
Given the output schema exists and there is only one parameter, the description is fairly complete. It specifies the scope (ACL-visible knowledge) and the output characteristic (citations). It does not need to explain return format since the output schema handles that. A minor gap is the lack of any mention of usage context, but overall adequate.
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?
The schema has zero description coverage, so the description must explain the 'question' parameter. The description implies the question is the input but does not add any details about format, length, or constraints. It adds minimal value beyond the parameter name.
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 tool answers from ACL-visible team knowledge and includes citations. It is specific about the resource (team knowledge) and the output (answer with citations). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_brain, so it lacks a clear distinction.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions or conditions for using search_brain or read_page. The implied use case (asking a question) is present but not explicitly framed against siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.