Resend the dashboard claim email to contactEmail (MCP agent API key only; keys:manage scope). Use when the original link expired (72h) or was lost. Rate limit: 3/hour.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "resend_claim_link"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the auth constraint (MCP agent API key only, keys:manage scope), the 3/hour rate limit, and the 72h link lifetime. It does not state whether resending invalidates the previous link or what the response confirms, which keeps it out of 5 territory.
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 compact sentences with no waste: action first, then trigger conditions, then auth and rate-limit constraints. Every clause 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 no-param, no-output-schema mutation, the description supplies the essentials: what it sends, when to use it, permission scope, and rate limits. Only the effect on any prior outstanding link and confirmation of where contactEmail originates are left unstated.
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?
Zero parameters gives the baseline of 4, and the description does not need to explain a schema. The reference to contactEmail introduces a mild inconsistency with the empty parameter object, but as a no-arg operation this is minor.
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?
Specific verb plus resource: 'Resend the dashboard claim email to contactEmail' clearly identifies the action and target, and no sibling tool performs a similar resend/claim operation. It falls short of a 5 only because contactEmail is named as a target while the schema declares zero parameters, leaving the agent to infer where that value comes from.
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?
Explicit trigger conditions are given: use when the original link expired (72h) or was lost. That is clear context for when to call it, though no alternative or preconditions (e.g., what to do if the contact email itself is wrong) are mentioned.
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.