Used only by the Proposal.biz card to restore its state after a chat reload. Never call this yourself.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cardId | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| status | Yes | ||
| proposalId | No | ||
| renderType | No | ||
| documentReady | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / properties / documentReadyAdded value: +{
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Output schema / properties / status / enumPrevious value: -[
- "created",
- "skipped",
- "has_website",
- "not_needed",
- "missing"
-]New value: +[
+ "created",
+ "skipped",
+ "started",
+ "has_website",
+ "not_needed",
+ "missing"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, non-destructive, closed-world safety. The description adds important caller-restriction context: it is intended solely for the Proposal.biz card and should never be called directly by an agent. It doesn't describe the return format, but the output schema covers that.
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?
Two short, front-loaded sentences with zero waste. The key instruction ('Never call this yourself') is placed last for emphasis, which is appropriate.
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 an internal tool with an output schema and clear annotations, the description provides exactly what an agent needs: a reason to avoid calling it and sufficient context to understand its role. Parameter details are not critical since the tool should not be selected by the agent.
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% and the single required parameter 'cardId' is not mentioned in the description. While the name and UUID format make it self-evident, the description does nothing to compensate for the missing schema description. The rule says low coverage requires description to compensate, which it does not.
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's purpose: it restores the Proposal.biz card's state after a chat reload. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the sole caller and the UI context. It doesn't explicitly state the return value (though an output schema exists), but the verb 'restore' implies retrieving state.
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?
Explicitly gives when to use ('only by the Proposal.biz card to restore its state after a chat reload') and when not to use ('Never call this yourself'). This is a definitive exclusion for general agents, leaving no ambiguity.
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.