ZeroWidth

Record that the change landed

compass_opportunities_mark_implemented

The measurement window's boundary: when the user says the experiment's change actually shipped / went live / rolled out, record the landing date. Readings before it are baseline; after it, evidence of effect. Recorded once — it cannot move afterward, so confirm the date. Attaches to the linked Ledger entry as evidence. May return needs_confirmation.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`at`	No	ISO date the change landed — omit for today.
`note`	No	What shipped, if worth recording.
`workspace`	No	Workspace slug. Personal tokens with no default workspace MUST pass this; tokens with a default can override per call. Ignored for workspace API keys.
`applyToMap`	No	Also move the map from the landing date: who does the change's steps, and how long they take, change as the change's effects say (automate, reassign, assist, relax a check, remove). Confirm with the user first; it can't be undone.
`approvalId`	No	Approval id from a prior needs_confirmation response, after the user has approved. Omit on the first call.
`opportunityId`	Yes	The change's key (e.g. ACME-12) or id, from compass_opportunities_list.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 22, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / applyToMap

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Also move the map from the landing date: who does the change's steps, and how long they take, change as the change's effects say (automate, reassign, assist, relax a check, remove). Confirm with the user first; it can't be undone.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

First observedOct 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare it as a non-destructive mutation. The description adds crucial behavioral context beyond annotations: the record is irreversible ('cannot move afterward'), it attaches to the linked Ledger entry as evidence, and it may return `needs_confirmation`, implying an approval flow. These are important for correct use.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is four sentences, each carrying useful information. It is mostly front-loaded, though the opening phrase 'The measurement window's boundary' is slightly abstract before the concrete action is stated. No wasteful content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given this is a mutation with irreversible effects and an approval flow, the description covers the core action, trigger, irreversibility, side effect (attaching evidence), and potential return value (`needs_confirmation`). It is complete enough for an agent to call correctly, though it does not explain every parameter's effect.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all parameters. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the general concept of recording a date, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action: recording the landing date of an experiment's change, framed as the measurement window boundary. It clearly distinguishes this from status changes or accept/propose siblings by focusing on the irreversible landing date and its baseline/effect implications. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The trigger is clear: 'when the user says the experiment's change actually shipped / went live / rolled out.' It also advises confirming the date because it cannot move afterward. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, but the context is sufficiently defined for correct invocation.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All ZeroWidth tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?