cotal_subscribe_newsletterSubscribes the user's email to release updates from the COTAL team. Idempotent: an already-subscribed email is a no-op.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | The user's email address. Required so the record has a traceable origin. | ||
| sandbox | No | Dry run: validate the call, apply rate limits, store nothing. Use it to test the integration. |
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?
Description adds the no-op behavior for duplicate emails, which supplements the idempotentHint annotation. It also implies a write operation (subscribe) which aligns with readOnlyHint false. However, it does not detail other side effects like confirmation emails or rate limiting.
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?
Description is extremely concise: one sentence for purpose and one for idempotency. No fluff.
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?
Given the simple parameter set (two fields, one required), the description and schema together fully cover the tool's behavior. No output schema is needed, and the description does not omit necessary context.
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 provides full coverage for both parameters: email has pattern and maxLength; sandbox has a clear description explaining dry-run behavior. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description clearly states the action: 'Subscribes the user's email to release updates from the COTAL team.' It identifies the resource (email) and the action (subscribe). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like cotal_join_waitlist, so it misses the top score.
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?
Provides guidance on idempotency: 'Idempotent: an already-subscribed email is a no-op.' But it does not state when to use this over other subscription or list tools, nor any prerequisites. Thus limited guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.