Run fact guardrails on one or all resume versions to detect forbidden claims and missing required facts, flagging unconfirmed content and real gaps.
Run the fact guardrails (forbidden claims, required facts) on one version or all of them.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| version | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states what is checked (forbidden claims, required facts) but not whether the operation is read-only, what it returns (pass/fail, violation list), or whether a failed check errors out. For a validation tool with zero annotation coverage, 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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though brevity here partly comes at the cost of the missing behavioral and parameter detail noted elsewhere.
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?
No output schema and no annotations mean the description must explain the result shape and safety profile, and it does neither. An agent cannot tell what a successful or failed check yields, which is a notable gap for a validation tool.
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?
The single 'version' parameter has no schema description (0% coverage), but the phrase 'one version or all of them' usefully conveys that the parameter is optional and that omitting it scopes the check to every version. It still omits the version identifier format (ID vs. name) and how to target a specific one.
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 (run) and resource (fact guardrails) and clarifies what those guardrails cover: forbidden claims and required facts. It is distinguishable from siblings like score_version or build_version, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.
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 beyond the implicit 'run this to check facts'. No alternatives are named (e.g., score_version for scoring vs. check_facts for compliance), and there is no mention of prerequisites or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.