celiums-memory

research_gap_add

Flag an unresolved question that lacks evidence. Record why it's unresolved to keep your investigation honest. Gaps are automatically re-attempted in the next iteration.

Instructions

Flag an unresolved question — something you searched for but couldn't back up with evidence. Gaps are first-class: they keep your investigation honest and re-entry tools (next iteration) re-attempt them automatically.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "projectId": "<projectId>",
      "question": "<question>"
    },
    "name": "research_gap_add"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`projectId`	Yes
`question`	Yes
`whyUnresolved`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.2.5Apr 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must bear the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that gaps are first-class and automatically re-attempted, but omits details on side effects, permissions, error handling, or output behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise at two sentences, front-loading the core purpose. However, it could be more structured by listing parameters or using bullet points for clarity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema and moderate complexity (3 params, 2 required), the description is incomplete: it does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., success confirmation, ID) or handle error cases, leaving gaps in agent understanding.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 3 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description provides context for 'question' and 'whyUnresolved' implicitly, but does not explicitly describe each parameter's meaning or constraints, leaving ambiguity for 'projectId' and 'whyUnresolved'.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to flag an unresolved question that couldn't be backed with evidence. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing that gaps are first-class and automatically re-attempted, making the purpose specific and unique.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use the tool (after searching without finding evidence) and mentions automatic re-attempts, but it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparisons to alternatives like research_finding_add.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.