my_optimization_proposalsFor an AGENCY: its optimization proposals — sent or not, answered or not — with each item's Yes/No, the client's reason for each No, and which approved items are done. Pass proposal for one in full.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| proposal | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful detail about what data is returned, including sent/answered states and client No reasons, but does not add behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as permissions or pagination behavior.
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 two tight sentences with the main resource and scope front-loaded. Every clause carries information about either the returned fields or the parameter's special use.
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?
With no output schema, the description is responsible for explaining return content, and it does so by listing sent/answered states, item Yes/No values, No reasons, and completion status for approved items. It is nearly complete for a read-only, single-optional-parameter tool, though pagination or ordering details are absent.
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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains that passing 'proposal' retrieves one proposal in full, which is helpful, but it does not specify the expected identifier format or whether the value is an ID, name, or other token.
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 identifies the resource as an agency's optimization proposals and enumerates the returned details (sent/answered status, item Yes/No, No reasons, completion status). It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as draft_optimization_proposal or send_optimization_proposal, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
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 phrase 'For an AGENCY' gives a usage context, and 'Pass proposal for one in full' explains when to supply the parameter. However, it does not say when to use this tool versus related siblings like my_agency, send_optimization_proposal, or mark_optimization_done, leaving alternatives to inference.
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.