Attach implementation evidence to a post (shown publicly).
kind is one of branch|commit|pr|transcript|url; ref is the branch
name, commit sha, or URL. Voters see these in the post page's
"Implementation" section.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | Yes | ||
| kind | Yes | ||
| slug | Yes | ||
| label | No | ||
| post_id | Yes | ||
| action_key | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / action_keyAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "title": "Action Key"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that evidence is shown publicly and appears in the 'Implementation' section, but no annotations exist. It lacks details on permissions, side effects, or rate limits, though the core behavior is clear.
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 highly concise, using three short lines to convey the purpose, parameter hints, and user-facing impact with no wasted words.
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?
The description provides context on public visibility and the output section, but given 6 parameters (4 required) and no explanation for most, it is incomplete. The existence of an output schema partially mitigates this, but parameter semantics are lacking.
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?
Only 2 of 6 parameters (kind, ref) are explained in the description, despite 0% schema description coverage. The optional parameters (label, action_key) and required identifiers (slug, post_id) are left undocumented, forcing the agent to infer.
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 action (attach evidence) and target resource (post), with public visibility. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_comment or create_post by specifying evidence attachment.
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 explains when to use the tool (to attach evidence to a post) and provides context about how evidence appears to voters. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or mention when not to use it.
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.