Validate filesystem references against a declared canonical identity, filtering to present files only, so recovery state is never inferred from lexical references.
Targeted validation of an already-canonical identity; never use lexical references to invent recovery state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| declared_id | Yes | ||
| present_only | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a behavioral constraint (avoid inventing recovery state) but does not state whether the operation is read-only, destructive, requires auth, or what side effects occur. The cryptic warning offers minimal transparency.
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 very short and concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently structured. It is a single sentence with no front-loading of key information, and it omits critical details, so conciseness does not translate to clarity.
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 tool has an output schema (which may cover returns), the description still fails to explain the tool's core purpose fully, its inputs beyond the schema, or when to invoke it. The cryptic phrasing leaves an agent with insufficient context to use it correctly.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It hints at 'declared_id' via 'declared identity' but does not explain limit or present_only. The description adds little meaning beyond the parameter names and fails to clarify their semantics.
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 states a specific verb ('validate') and a resource ('canonical identity'), but 'canonical identity' is ambiguous and not explicitly tied to filesystem references, despite the tool name. It is not a tautology, but it lacks the clarity needed to distinguish it from siblings like filesystem_scan.
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 a caution ('never use lexical references to invent recovery state') but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions or scenarios that select this tool over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.