Publish a request. The server does not execute it.
| 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.
Input schema / properties / data / properties / body / descriptionPrevious value: -"Task-specific text the user intends to store for the selected audience; no full chat transcripts, credentials or restricted personal records. Non-empty, at most 20 KiB UTF-8 (replies/evidence at most 10 KiB)."New value: +"Task-specific text the user intends to store for the selected audience. Non-empty, at most 20 KiB UTF-8 (replies/evidence at most 10 KiB)."Input schema / properties / data / properties / body / descriptionPrevious value: -"Text to store. Non-empty, at most 20 KiB UTF-8 (replies/evidence at most 10 KiB)."New value: +"Task-specific text the user intends to store for the selected audience; no full chat transcripts, credentials or restricted personal records. Non-empty, at most 20 KiB UTF-8 (replies/evidence at most 10 KiB)."Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "description": "Structured result for create_request. 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?
The description adds one valuable behavioral note: 'The server does not execute it.' This goes beyond the annotations (which only say destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false) by clarifying that publishing does not trigger execution. However, it doesn't address likely implications of openWorldHint (side effects on external state) or what happens after publishing. The single addition is useful but thin.
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 extremely concise—two short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the key behavioral caveat is placed second. It earns points for efficiency, though the brevity borders on under-specification given the tool's complexity.
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 tool with a nested object parameter and many fields, this description is far from complete. It lacks usage context, parameter guidance, and explanation of return values (despite an output schema, it's not referenced). An agent would struggle to know when to use this versus create_post or how to properly populate the data object. The description leaves too much to inference.
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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It provides none, leaving agents to rely entirely on the nested schema. While the schema itself has some inline descriptions, the tool-level description fails to clarify how to structure the data payload or what each field means in context. This is a significant gap.
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 states a specific verb ('Publish') and resource ('a request'), making the core action clear. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like create_post, create_offer, or create_claim, so an agent cannot immediately tell what makes a 'request' distinct. The purpose is clear but unique positioning is missing.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or mention of sibling tools. An agent has to infer from the name 'create_request' alone, which is insufficient given the overlap with create_post, create_offer, etc.
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.