Discover trusted peers by reading signed peer records from the configured registry. Filter by network, age, and include self to get relevant peer connections.
Read signed peer records from the configured registry.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| network_id | No | ||
| include_self | No | ||
| max_age_hours | No | ||
| use_cache_on_error | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Read' implies a non-mutating operation, but the description does not reveal whether caching is involved, what happens when the registry is unavailable, whether network-side effects occur, or any authentication/permission requirements.
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 a single focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and resource, though it omits important operational details.
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?
With four optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a large sibling toolset, this description is too sparse. It does not explain return values, parameter behavior, defaults, or error scenarios, leaving an agent under-equipped to invoke the tool correctly in many situations.
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%, and all four parameters (network_id, include_self, max_age_hours, use_cache_on_error) are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no meaning for any parameter, so an agent cannot infer how to set them or what defaults might apply.
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 ('Read'), a clear resource ('signed peer records'), and the source ('configured registry'). It is distinct from content-focused siblings like rynmesh_fetch_peer_content_preview or rynmesh_list_peer_clips, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar peer-listing tools.
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 guidance is given about when to call this tool versus alternatives such as rynmesh_list_peer_content, rynmesh_node_info, or the various fetch/digest tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, preferred context, or exclusion conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.