Resolve one TrustCarry Protocol v0.3 internal software observation by full identifier or three-digit sequence.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| observation_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world hints. The description adds the identifier types (full or three-digit sequence), which is more about parameter semantics than behavioral disclosure. No contradictions, but little additional behavioral context beyond 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?
A single, well-front-loaded sentence that states the action, resource, and identification method without any waste. It is perfectly concise.
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 simple single-parameter lookup with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers the core resolution method. It doesn't explain domain context or when to prefer it over list_research_observations, but complexity is low.
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 only defines observation_id as a string without format details. The description clarifies that the identifier can be a full identifier or a three-digit sequence, adding meaningful semantic value beyond the schema. For a single parameter with 0% schema coverage, this is a solid compensation.
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 the specific verb 'Resolve' and identifies the resource as 'one TrustCarry Protocol v0.3 internal software observation', with a clear lookup method by identifier or sequence. This distinguishes it from sibling getters like get_claim and get_paper.
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 clearly implies usage for retrieving a single observation by identifier, placing it among other getter tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough to differentiate from list_research_observations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: overviews, specific claims/papers, searches by different granularities, citation help, and document verification. No two tools overlap in purpose.
All tool names use lowercase snake_case with clear verb-noun or noun-preposition patterns (e.g., get_claim, search_papers, claim_layer_overview). The naming is uniform and predictable.
With 11 tools, the set covers the core operations for exploring a scholarly corpus without being excessive. Each tool serves a clear and necessary purpose.
The tools provide comprehensive coverage for discovering, retrieving, and verifying content from the corpus: overviews, searches at paper/claim/post level, direct retrieval, and document verification. No obvious missing operations for the intended use case.