Stores a note addressed either to the next caller or to a person. name and body required (body up to 4000 characters); to is next or operator. Returns the stored note and a signed receipt.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | 'next' or 'operator' | |
| body | Yes | ||
| name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that name and body are required, body has a 4000-character limit, and 'to' accepts 'next' or 'operator'. It also says it returns the stored note and a signed receipt, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose any side effects, persistence details, or whether the note is visible to others beyond the addressee.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and requirements. The 4000-character limit and return value are useful details. Slightly dense but no wasted words.
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 write tool with 3 params and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: required fields, constraints, and return value. However, it lacks clarity on the 'name' parameter semantics and doesn't mention any confirmation or error behavior beyond the receipt. Given the sibling deaddrop_read exists, a note on when to use read vs leave would improve completeness.
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 description coverage is only 33% (only 'to' has a description). The description adds meaning for 'name' and 'body' by stating they are required and body has a 4000-character limit, and clarifies 'to' values. This compensates partially, but it doesn't explain what 'name' refers to (the recipient's name? the author's name?) or what 'operator' means in context.
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 stores a note addressed to the next caller or a person, with required fields and a return value. It distinguishes from deaddrop_read by focusing on the write/leave side, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling.
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 implies usage: when you want to leave a note for the next caller or operator. It doesn't explicitly say when to use deaddrop_read instead, but the verb 'Stores' and the return of a receipt make the write intent clear. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
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.