Converts an absolute, case-sensitive Gopan path into its node ID, using / as the virtual root. Use it to target files or folders by path before performing operations.
Resolve an absolute, case-sensitive Gopan path to a node ID. / is the virtual root.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | absolute case-sensitive Gopan path, for example /reports/2026; / is the root |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node | No | ||
| path | Yes | ||
| root | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating lookup. The description adds the useful constraints that the path must be absolute and is case-sensitive, plus the virtual-root convention, but it says nothing about failure behavior for unresolvable paths or about resolution relative to aliases/symlinks.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every clause (absolute, case-sensitive, root convention) carries information an agent needs. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.
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?
For a single-parameter read-only lookup with a declared output schema, the description is nearly sufficient; return-value shape need not be explained. The only meaningful gap is the absence of any note on behavior when the path is invalid or not found.
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 100% and the parameter already documents 'absolute case-sensitive Gopan path ... / is the root'. The description restates the same facts rather than adding new meaning such as escaping rules, trailing-slash handling, or max depth, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 and resource ('Resolve an absolute ... path to a node ID'), making the input and output unambiguous. It is clearly distinct from siblings like get_file_info or list_files, though it does not name any sibling to differentiate itself explicitly.
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 input-to-output mapping ('path to node ID') implies the use case: converting a known path into an ID for other calls. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as get_file_info, and no statement about what happens when the path does not resolve.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.