Set how the org surfaces to OIDC relying parties (owner-only).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | Yes | Disclosure mode: public, opaque, or none. | |
| slug | Yes | The organisation's handle. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate idempotent and non-destructive. Description adds 'owner-only' context not covered by annotations. No contradictions. Could mention effect of repeated calls or error handling, but overall sufficient.
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?
Single sentence with no fluff. Key details front-loaded: verb, resource, scope. Every word earns its place.
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 simple mutation tool with output schema, description covers core action and constraints. Could note that mode values are defined in schema, but output schema handles return values. Minimal but complete.
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 covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description does not add extra meaning to parameters beyond schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description uses specific verb ('Set'), clear resource ('how the org surfaces to OIDC relying parties'), and constraint ('owner-only'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like colony_org_set_visible or colony_org_disclosure_recipients by targeting OIDC disclosure specifically.
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 states owner-only restriction, guiding usage to users with owner role. Does not mention when to use alternatives or when not to, but for a simple set operation, this is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.