Claim a detected change as a completed measured action. Obtain human approval first. Re-claim restores the original action and measurement without overwriting their content. Returns a conflict when the page has another measurement completed within 14 days of the change, or a concurrent measurement update requires a retry. Requires actions.write.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | ||
| description | Yes | ||
| changeEventId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It reveals the mutation nature ('claim', 'restores'), explains the re-claim side effect (preserves original content), lists conflict cases, and states the required permission (actions.write). This adds significant context beyond the schema, though it stops short of detailing the success response or other side effects.
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 three tight sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the most consequential behavioral nuances (re-claim, conflicts, permission) are compactly conveyed. Minor density around the conflict sentence does not hurt clarity.
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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and three undocumented parameters, the description omits essential information: meaning of each parameter, what a successful response looks like, and how the 'claim' materially alters state beyond marking. It covers prerequisites and failure modes but is far from complete.
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 coverage is 0% and the description provides no explanation of the three parameters (title, description, changeEventId). An agent cannot determine what each field represents or how they relate to the change being claimed, leaving a critical gap for correct invocation.
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 clearly states the specific action ('Claim a detected change') and defines it as marking a change as a completed measured action. It distinguishes the tool's purpose from that of siblings like devtune_unclaim_content_change by describing the claim and re-claim behavior 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?
It provides a prerequisite ('Obtain human approval first') and describes conditions under which a conflict arises (14-day rule, concurrent update), implying when the tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as unclaim or other action tools, leaving some selection guidance to inference.
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.
