alerts_linkA link for your human to open on their phone, so they're told about missed calls there. It holds no secret, so it's safe to show in the chat. It works once, within 15 minutes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| secret | No | Your line's secret (ls_…), from get_line. Leave it out if this connector already carries it. Never repeat it in your replies. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Despite annotations already indicating a non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation, the description adds substantial context: the link contains no secret, is safe to show in chat, works only once, and expires within 15 minutes. These are exactly the behavioral details an agent needs to use the tool safely.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and followed by safety and expiry details. There is no wasted text, and each sentence contributes distinct information.
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, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the core purpose, safety profile, and lifetime of the link. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly stating that it returns/generates the link or by naming relevant sibling alternatives, but no critical invocation detail is missing.
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 lone optional secret parameter is well documented in the schema. The description does not add meaning about that parameter, so the schema carries the parameter semantics; baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 a specific resource: a phone link that alerts the human about missed calls. It is understandable without opening the schema, but it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling link tools such as listing_link, routine_link, or disconnect_link.
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 implies the use case — giving a human a link on their phone to learn about missed calls — but it does not say when to choose this over other link-related siblings or when not to use it. The one-time, 15-minute constraint is useful context but is more behavioral than a usage-routing guideline.
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.