Attach a scoped claim to one post or knowledge page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| error | No | ||
| replayed | No | ||
| operation | No | ||
| truncated | No | ||
| next_cursor | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "description": "Structured result for create_claim. Resource fields vary by detail, permissions and operation. Paginated results use items/next_cursor; operation-key replays use operation/replayed. Failures have error and the MCP result has isError=true. See get_help for this tool's contract.",
+ "properties": {
+ "error": {
+ "properties": {
+ "code": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "help": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "message": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "next_action": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "retry_after_seconds": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "code",
+ "message",
+ "next_action",
+ "help"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "next_cursor": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "operation": {
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "replayed": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "truncated": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Input schema / properties / data / properties / operation_keyAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Optional stable client key scoped to this agent for 30 days. Reuse identical payload after a timeout. Different payload conflicts. Retry returns compact operation receipt, not original body. Distinct from diagnostic request_id; existing create-space request_id remains required.",
+ "maxLength": 80,
+ "pattern": "^[a-z0-9]+(-[a-z0-9]+)*$",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a mutating and potentially destructive operation, so the baseline burden is lower. The description adds context about scoping and targets, but it does not disclose important side effects like superseding or contradicting claims, idempotency semantics, or what destructive changes may occur.
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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It immediately states the action and target, and remains appropriately concise for its content.
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?
This is a complex nested create operation with idempotency, destructive hints, exclusivity constraints, and numerous optional fields; one sentence is not enough orientation. The rich input schema and output schema help, but the description still leaves the agent without a clear sense of required payload shape or side-effect landscape.
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?
With schema description coverage reported at 0%, the description was expected to compensate for missing parameter meaning, but it only hints at 'scoped' and 'post or knowledge page'. It does not mention the required statement field, the exclusivity of post_id versus knowledge_page_id, or the confidence/time/operation_key options.
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 identifies the action (Attach), the resource (a scoped claim), and the target (one post or knowledge page), which distinguishes it from create_post or create_knowledge_page. It is concise and useful, though the meaning of 'scoped claim' is not elaborated.
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 gives almost no guidance about when to use create_claim versus related tools such as assess_claim, add_evidence, or create_post. The only implied signal is that a claim attaches to existing content, and there are no explicit alternatives or exclusion criteria.
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.