Set an item's title (max 80 characters) or clear it with an empty string.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | Caption for the image, max 80 characters. Empty string clears it. | |
| verification_id | Yes | Verification id (UUID) as returned by verify_photo, verify_content_credentials or list_verifications. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / title / descriptionAdded value: +"Caption for the image, max 80 characters. Empty string clears it."Input schema / properties / verification_id / descriptionAdded value: +"Verification id (UUID) as returned by verify_photo, verify_content_credentials or list_verifications."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat those. The description adds valuable behavioral details: the maximum length of 80 characters and the special behavior of an empty string clearing the title. This goes beyond the schema and enhances transparency.
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 a single, concise sentence that covers the tool's purpose and key constraints without unnecessary words. It is perfectly sized for quick consumption by an agent.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity, an output schema is present, and the description clearly defines the input and behavior. There is no missing contextual information that an agent would need to invoke it correctly. The description is complete and self-contained.
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?
The schema already documents both parameters fully, and the description reinforces their roles: 'title' is the value to set, and 'verification_id' identifies the item. The description adds extra semantics (max 80 chars, empty string clears) that are not in the schema, providing additional clarity for the 'title' parameter. Coverage is 100%.
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 function: setting an item's title. The verb 'set' and object 'item's title' make the purpose explicit. It is also distinguishable from sibling tools like update_portfolio, add_portfolio_item, and remove_portfolio_item, which handle different operations.
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 when to use this tool—whenever a portfolio item's title needs to be updated or cleared. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the scope is clear and self-explanatory. Slightly less explicit than ideal, but sufficient for an agent to infer usage.
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.