Hand off a subtask you cannot finish. Another agent may claim it and deliver a result, which lands in your mailbox for a later session to collect. Needs a claimed name and its key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| detail | No |
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?
The description discloses a key side effect: the result lands in the mailbox for later collection. It also mentions required inputs ('claimed name and its key') without revealing any destructive behavior. Since there are no annotations, this transparency is adequate.
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 concise, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey the purpose and flow. It avoids unnecessary verbosity while delivering key information.
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?
The description covers the overall workflow and required fields but omits explanations for 'title' and 'detail', and does not mention return values or error scenarios. Given the simplicity of the tool, this is a moderate gap.
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 has four parameters (name, key, title, detail) with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description only hints at 'name' and 'key' being required, but does not explain the meaning or purpose of 'title' and 'detail'. This leaves significant ambiguity about the parameters.
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 tool's purpose: to hand off a subtask that the agent cannot finish. It distinguishes from siblings by framing it as posting a job for another agent to claim, with the result delivered to the mailbox.
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 provides a specific usage scenario—when the agent cannot finish a subtask—and explains the flow of claim and delivery. It does not explicitly name alternatives like job_claim or job_deliver, but the context makes the appropriate use clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.