Address coordinates in a known synthetic universe without loading state; mutates memory up to 64 addresses per server and returns immutable address/provenance.
Address a coordinate in a known synthetic universe, without loading state. Mutates memory (max 64 addresses/server); returns immutable address/provenance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| coordinate | Yes | ||
| universe_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare the mutation/safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds real context beyond them: it mutates memory, is capped at 64 addresses per server, and returns an immutable address/provenance. It does not explain what happens on exceeding the cap or how conflicts are resolved, but the added behavioral detail is substantive and consistent with the 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?
Two dense, front-loaded sentences with zero filler; the action leads, and the mutation/capacity/return facts follow compactly. Nothing is redundant.
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 two-parameter mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers mutation, the capacity ceiling, and the return shape. It still omits capacity-exceeded behavior, idempotency semantics, and the coordinate/universe_id formats, leaving meaningful gaps for a state-mutating operation.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage on two parameters, the description carries the full burden. It only loosely references a 'coordinate' and a 'known synthetic universe' and never explains the universe_id format (pattern u[1-9][0-9]?) or the coordinate range (0-999999), leaving both parameters effectively undocumented.
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 (address) and resource (a coordinate in a known synthetic universe), and the distinctive 'without loading state' phrasing separates it from state-loading siblings like implicit_materialize. The domain jargon ('synthetic universe', 'address an experience') keeps it a notch below fully transparent, but the action is clear.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no sibling is named as an alternative. 'Without loading state' hints at a contrast with state-loading tools but leaves the agent to infer when to reach for this over implicit_materialize or implicit_inspect_state.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.