release_trial_seatRelease a held trial seat; the place is free again.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"id": "<id>"
},
"name": "release_trial_seat"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The trial seat's id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one piece of behavioral context — the seat's place becomes free again — which tells the agent the effect is capacity release rather than record deletion. It does not say whether the release is reversible, whether it errors if the seat is not currently held, or what happens to the associated trial session.
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?
A single short sentence with the action front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though the terseness comes at the cost of the usage and behavioral detail noted elsewhere.
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 one-parameter tool with full schema coverage and annotations declaring the destructive profile, little is required. However, the description omits the prerequisite state (seat must be held) and any failure behavior, which are the two things an agent most needs before invoking a destructive operation.
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 100%, so the single 'id' parameter is already fully documented as 'The trial seat's id.' The description adds no format, sourcing, or lookup guidance beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb+resource combination ('Release a held trial seat') that an agent can distinguish from the counterpart hold_trial_seat and from list_trial_seats. It does not explicitly name the sibling, but the word 'held' makes the inverse relationship inferable.
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 explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites (that a seat must first be held), and no exclusion conditions. The only guidance is implicit in the adjective 'held', which the agent must infer.
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.