Look up canonical TRIZ inventive principles 1–40 by number or list all 40, so agents can retrieve principles deterministically instead of recalling them from memory.
Get a canonical TRIZ inventive principle (1-40). Omit id to list all 40. Look up principle numbers instead of recalling them from memory.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Principle number 1-40; omit to list all |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the disclosure burden. "Get" implies a read-only lookup, and the omit-to-list behavior is stated, but the description never says what a principle record actually contains (title only? full text, examples, contradictions?), which is the main behavioral unknown for a knowledge tool.
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?
Three short sentences, zero filler, with the core capability and the range front-loaded and the two call modes and the rationale trailing in order of importance.
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 single-optional-parameter reference tool with no output schema, the definition covers what an agent needs to invoke it correctly. The only omission is the shape of the returned principle data, which matters somewhat given there is no output schema to fall back on.
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 100% and the schema description already reads "Principle number 1-40; omit to list all", so the description's omit-to-list sentence adds nothing beyond structured fields. No syntax, default, or edge-case meaning is introduced.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Get a canonical TRIZ inventive principle") and bounds it with the 1-40 range, so an agent immediately understands this is a reference lookup table. It doesn't name a sibling to distinguish itself from, but the resource name is distinct enough from triz_parameter, triz_matrix, and triz_effects that confusion is unlikely.
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?
Gives explicit operating guidance: omit id to enumerate all 40, and use this tool rather than recalling principle numbers from memory. That covers both call modes. It stops short of saying when to prefer a sibling (e.g., triz_matrix for contradiction lookup), so it falls just shy of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.