Open a specific project entity (block, chain, link, plan, or decision) to view only its relevant details and recent history, enabling accurate, context-aware updates.
Open one Block, Chain, Link, Plan, or Decision with only relevant details and recent History.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| type | Yes | ||
| locale | No | ||
| projectRoot | No | ||
| historyLimit | No | ||
| taskContextId | No | ||
| includeStructured | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.3Input schema / properties / taskContextIdAdded value: +{
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+}v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description must explain behavior itself. It does disclose that output is narrowed to 'only relevant details and recent History,' which is useful, but it does not clarify whether 'Open' is a pure read operation, what side effects may occur, or what the response shape is.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core action and entity scope appear first. It is concise, but the brevity comes at the cost of omitting important behavioral and parameter detail, so it is efficient rather than comprehensive.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter descriptions, the description is the only source of guidance, and it is too thin. An agent cannot confidently determine what 'relevant details' means, how history is limited, or how optional parameters like includeStructured and projectRoot affect the call.
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 schema covers 7 parameters with no descriptions, and the description only weakly maps to them: 'one Block, Chain, Link, Plan, or Decision' relates to 'type', and 'recent History' hints at 'historyLimit'. Params like locale, projectRoot, id, and includeStructured are left unexplained, so the description does not compensate for the 0% schema coverage.
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 ('Open') and clearly states the object: one Block, Chain, Link, Plan, or Decision. It also conveys the scoped nature of the operation ('only relevant details and recent History'), but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like decision_open, which may overlap in purpose for decisions.
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?
There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as decision_open or timeline_view, and no context about appropriate use cases or prerequisites. The description merely states what the tool does without helping an agent decide between alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.