Query BTTM/1 records by valid time and known time to compare what was true in the represented world versus what MangoMe knew at a given moment.
Query BTTM/1 independently by represented-world time and MangoMe-known time.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| known_at | No | ||
| valid_at | No | ||
| work_ref | Yes | ||
| include_unsupported | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about whether this is a read or write operation, what is returned, permission requirements, or the effect of include_unsupported. For a bitemporal query tool this is a substantial gap.
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?
It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, but it is terse to the point of obscurity — every word is jargon the agent must guess at, so brevity here costs more than it saves.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and unexplained domain jargon, the description is far too thin for a bitemporal query tool. Key context an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.
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% across 4 parameters. The description alludes to the two time axes (valid_at / known_at) but never maps them to parameter names, and says nothing about work_ref or include_unsupported, leaving half the parameters undocumented in both schema and description.
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 names a verb ('Query') and a resource ('BTTM/1'), and points at two temporal dimensions, but 'BTTM/1' and 'MangoMe' are opaque jargon that an agent cannot resolve without external knowledge. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like bitemporal_truth_status or truth_assertion_status, so the specific purpose remains ambiguous.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to alternatives among the numerous truth-related siblings. The agent must infer everything about when this tool is the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.