request_sign_upRegisters a person's interest in signing up for Sherah, without a specific task attached. Sherah emails them a confirmation link; the sign-up only proceeds once they click it, so use this when you have the person's own email address and their agreement to be contacted. If they have a concrete task in mind, use request_sign_up_with_task instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | Yes | ||
| Yes | |||
| state | Yes | US state (two-letter code) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It reveals a key behavioral trait: Sherah emails a confirmation link and the sign-up only proceeds after the person clicks it. This goes beyond a simple action statement. It does not mention duplicate handling or response behavior, but the core side effect is clear.
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 sentences with no repetition or filler. The main action is front-loaded, followed by behavioral detail and usage guidance. Every sentence 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 simple 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains the sign-up flow, when to use it, and the alternative. It lacks explanation of the required city/state parameters and the return behavior, but parameter names and the state enum cover some of that gap. Adequate for correct invocation in most cases.
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 only 33% (only state is described). The description does not explain the email, city, or state parameters beyond implying email is the person's address; city and state are entirely unaddressed. With such low schema coverage, the description needed to compensate and did not.
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 states a specific action ('Registers a person's interest in signing up for Sherah') and immediately scopes it with 'without a specific task attached.' It also explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling tool, making the purpose unmistakable.
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 gives an explicit condition for use: 'use this when you have the person's own email address and their agreement to be contacted.' It also names the alternative, request_sign_up_with_task, and the condition that would select it ('If they have a concrete task in mind').
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.