Log unknown topics and questions as knowledge gaps, incrementing priority count on repeated asks to signal what to fill in next.
Log or bump a "we don't know this yet" entry. Repeated asks of the same topic+question increment asked_count instead of duplicating — asked_count is the backlog's own priority signal for what to fill in next. Returns {id, status, asked_count}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| topic | Yes | ||
| app_id | Yes | ||
| question | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.2.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the write nature (non-read-only) and the side effect of incrementing asked_count, which is consistent with the annotations. It also states the return object, providing transparency about outputs. No contradictions with annotations.
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 two sentences, concise and focused. It includes the core action, the deduplication mechanism, and the return value without any extraneous detail, achieving high efficiency.
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 rich set of sibling tools, the description does not explain the overall workflow or prerequisites, but it does convey the tool's role in maintaining a backlog of knowledge gaps. It mentions the return value (helpful since no output schema exists) and the priority mechanism, making it sufficiently complete for its intended use.
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 coverage is 0%, and the description only clarifies the role of 'topic' and 'question' as the deduplication key. It does not explain 'app_id', nor does it specify any constraints or optionality for parameters, leaving a significant gap in understanding.
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 clearly states the action ('Log or bump...') and the specific resource ('we don't know this yet' entry). It distinguishes itself from sibling gap management tools by highlighting the bump behavior and priority signal, making its purpose unambiguous.
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 implies when to use it: when encountering a knowledge gap, and explains the deduplication behavior. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternatives like gap_list or gap_resolve, leaving some inference to the reader.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.