Ask Siren's clarifier whether a brief is specific enough to generate from. Returns ready=true/false plus follow-up questions. Use before create_campaign when the user's request is vague.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| brief | Yes | Plain-language request for the post, e.g. "announce the new export feature, use the dashboard screenshot". |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / brief / descriptionAdded value: +"Plain-language request for the post, e.g. \"announce the new export feature, use the dashboard screenshot\"."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the tool's safe behavioral profile is clear. The description adds the return shape (ready flag plus questions) but does not add further behavioral context such as rate limits, auth, or external effects; that is acceptable given strong 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?
Three short sentences cover the action, return value, and invocation context with no filler. The most important purpose and usage guidance are front-loaded.
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 read-only single-parameter tool, the description provides enough to call it correctly: purpose, input, return value, and when to use it. The output schema presumably details the return structure, and the only minor gap is guidance on how to use the follow-up questions after a false ready result.
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 'brief' as a required string with 0% description coverage. The tool description adds meaning by indicating the brief is the content evaluated for specificity, but it does not explain what a valid brief looks like, required content, or format expectations. Some compensation occurs, but not fully.
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 asks Siren's clarifier whether a brief is specific enough to generate from, which specifies both the action and the resource. It also names the return type (ready=true/false plus follow-up questions) and positions the tool as a precursor to create_campaign, making it distinct from sibling tools.
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 explicitly says to use this tool before create_campaign when the user's request is vague, providing a clear trigger condition. It does not enumerate when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the condition implies that specific briefs do not need this pre-check.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.