resolve_friendFuzzy-match a friend's name to find their user ID. Returns matching friends with IDs and match scores when you know the name but not the ID.
Fuzzy-match a friend by name. Returns matches with id, name, and match_score. Use this when you know a name but not the user_id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | ||
| threshold | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that matching is fuzzy and that results include a match_score, which is helpful. However, it does not explain threshold behavior, result ordering, maximum matches, or what happens when no match is found.
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?
Two concise sentences front-load the action and return type, then add the usage context. There is no filler or redundancy; every sentence earns its place.
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?
The description is adequate for a simple tool, especially with an output schema available. However, the unexplained threshold parameter and lack of behavioral details about fuzzy matching leave a meaningful gap for an agent trying to call it correctly in edge cases.
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 clarifies the meaning of 'query' indirectly ('match a friend by name'), but it never explains the 'threshold' parameter, which is a nullable integer with a default of null and no schema description. This leaves a required parameter's semantics underspecified.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Fuzzy-match a friend by name.' It also clarifies the return shape (id, name, match_score) and the triggering context ('know a name but not the user_id'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_friend or get_friends.
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 explicitly states the intended use case: 'Use this when you know a name but not the user_id.' It gives clear context but does not mention exclusions or name alternative tools such as get_friend when an ID is known.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.