mcp_replace_contextApp-only: replace the session-scoped Uwear Shoot Board items.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| context_items | No | Shoot Board items that replace the current list when context_state is omitted | |
| context_state | No | Complete Shoot Board state to sanitize and persist; takes precedence over context_items |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already convey destructive and idempotent behavior. The description adds 'session-scoped' and 'App-only', which narrow the scope and provide context beyond what annotations state. This is meaningful incremental value, though it does not detail 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 a single sentence that front-loads the action and includes key constraints. It contains no filler and every word contributes meaning.
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, combined with the schema's parameter descriptions, provides sufficient clarity for an agent to understand the tool's purpose, scope, and parameter semantics. The only minor gap is the undefined meaning of 'App-only', but overall it is complete for a replace tool with no output schema.
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 100% and both parameters have detailed descriptions, including the precedence relationship between context_items and context_state. The tool description adds no parameter-specific info, so the schema carries the burden, resulting in baseline 3.
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 action ('replace') and the resource ('session-scoped Uwear Shoot Board items'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mcp_add_context and mcp_clear_context, which have different operations.
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 replacement semantics compared to add/clear but does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. The 'App-only' hint offers some context but does not fully guide an agent on when to select this tool over its siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.