move_prospect_to_node| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node_id | Yes | A connection_request / send / action / manual / automation / decision / terminal node id in the agent's sequence (not start). | |
| agent_id | Yes | ID of the agent whose flow the prospect is on. | |
| prospect_id | Yes | The prospect's `id` — the outreach_prospects primary key, as returned on every query_prospects row and shown on the flow roster line. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / agent_idAdded value: +{
+ "description": "ID of the agent whose flow the prospect is on.",
+ "type": "integer"
+}Input schema / properties / node_id / descriptionPrevious value: -"A connection_request / send / action / manual / automation / decision /\nterminal node id in the task's sequence (not start)."New value: +"A connection_request / send / action / manual / automation / decision /\nterminal node id in the agent's sequence (not start)."Input schema / properties / task_idRemoved value: -{
- "description": "ID of the task whose flow the prospect is on.",
- "type": "integer"
-}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "task_id",
- "prospect_id",
- "node_id"
-]New value: +[
+ "agent_id",
+ "prospect_id",
+ "node_id"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses side effects beyond the annotations: moving the prospect fires the node's on_enter enactment on the next run, each call appends a fresh position row, and calling again re-routes while keeping prior history. This is valuable behavioral context that annotations don't provide.
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 long but structured with a <summary> tag and uses every sentence to explain important behavior or exclusions. It is slightly verbose for a tool with only three parameters, but the density of information justifies the length.
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 covers the core purpose, when to use, side effects, and return shape, and it references a <returns> section. It doesn't explicitly explain what happens with a terminal node or error conditions, but these are minor given the detailed operational behavior already provided.
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%, and the schema already explains each parameter (node_id, agent_id, prospect_id). The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what's in the schema, 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?
The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Move a prospect onto a flow node the automatic position writes can't place them on' and enumerates the node types it accepts. This clearly distinguishes it from automatic position-writing behavior and from other prospect-related tools in the sibling list.
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?
It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'the decision arm you picked after judging a fork, or the `then` target after an automation step's side-effect' and when not to: 'so do not compose the send here.' It also explains which cases the automatic paths already cover, giving a clear decision rule.
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.