Assess recurring workflows and submit an authorized sanitized inquiry for human review.
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one provides guidance and fit boundaries, the other submits an authorized inquiry. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_* and submit_*), using snake_case throughout. The naming is predictable and well-aligned with each tool's function.
With only two tools, the server feels minimal but arguably well-scoped for its narrow purpose of assessment guidance and inquiry submission. The count is at the low end of the acceptable range.
The surface covers the core workflow of obtaining guidance and submitting an inquiry, but lacks obvious follow-up capabilities like checking inquiry status or retrieving outcomes. These are minor gaps that can be worked around.
Use when a person or organization has a real recurring operational workflow with delay, rework, waiting, manual coordination, uncertainty, reliability problems, avoidable cost, or lost control. Returns the fit boundary and the information needed before any implementation. It does not promise acceptance or results.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| problem | No | ||
| recurrence | No | ||
| consequence | No | ||
| current_approach | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds behavioral nuance by stating it 'does not promise acceptance or results,' clarifying that it is a guidance-only tool and not a commitment. This goes beyond the annotations and helps set agent expectations.
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 three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the usage condition, then states the return value and a key limitation. Every sentence adds value and directly informs the agent's decision to call it.
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 should explain the return format in more detail. It says 'returns the fit boundary and the information needed before any implementation,' but does not specify the structure or content of that boundary. The parameter semantics are also unaddressed, leaving the agent to guess how to fill the four fields. Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description covers the high-level purpose but misses critical operational details.
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% and the description provides no information about the four parameters (problem, recurrence, consequence, current_approach). The agent has no hints about what values these should take, their formats, or their relationships to the tool's behavior. The description mentions 'recurring workflow' but does not map that to the 'recurrence' parameter, so it fails to compensate for the absent schema descriptions.
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 purpose: to assess whether 'Quiet Stance' fits a real recurring workflow problem. It enumerates the problem types (delay, rework, waiting, manual coordination, etc.) and clearly states what it returns (fit boundary and info needed before implementation). It also distinguishes itself from a sibling by noting it does not promise acceptance or results.
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 explicitly opens with 'Use when a person or organization has a real recurring operational workflow with...' which provides clear conditions for invocation. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or mention the sibling tool 'submit_workflow_inquiry' as an alternative, but the context implies this is for assessment prior to submission.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Submit a sanitized inquiry only after the user has explicitly authorized sending it to Quiet Stance. Do not send passwords, API keys, financial credentials, protected records, regulated personal data, or trade-secret documents. Submission creates an inquiry for human review; it does not imply acceptance, payment terms, system access, or authority to act.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| notes | No | ||
| consent | Yes | ||
| problem | Yes | ||
| recurrence | No | ||
| work_email | Yes | ||
| consequence | Yes | ||
| agent_source | No | ||
| organization | No | ||
| authorization | No | ||
| current_approach | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint false) but non-destructive (destructiveHint false). The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it states that submission creates an inquiry for human review and explicitly denies any implication of acceptance, payment terms, system access, or authority to act. It also instructs sanitization of sensitive data, which is a behavioral guideline. This exceeds what annotations alone convey.
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 three concise sentences with no redundancy. The core instruction is front-loaded, followed by critical constraints and then the non-commitment disclaimer. 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?
The tool has 11 parameters and no output schema, so the description needs to cover parameter handling and expected outcomes. It explains the purpose and what submission does (creates an inquiry for human review) but does not address return values, error scenarios, or how to properly fill in the required fields. The lack of parameter guidance makes it incomplete for a tool of this complexity.
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 compensate by explaining parameter meanings. However, it does not mention any of the 11 parameters (name, work_email, problem, etc.) or their purposes. It only gives general constraints like sanitization and authorization, which apply to inputs broadly but do not clarify individual fields. The description fails to help the agent understand what each parameter expects.
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 a specific action ('Submit a sanitized inquiry') and identifies the resource ('workflow inquiry to Quiet Stance'), with additional context about authorization and human review. The sibling tool (get_workflow_assessment_guidance) is obviously a read operation, so the purpose is unambiguous and distinct.
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 provides a clear prerequisite ('only after the user has explicitly authorized sending it') and constraints on content, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or point to the sibling as an alternative. It offers clear context without explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
get_workflow_assessment_guidancesubmit_workflow_inquiryDiscover, route, and hand off enterprise operations problems without exposing private records.
Verified AI-agent outcomes: secret scanning, JSON cleanup, dedupe, anomaly and schema checks.
Search PII-free opportunities, availability, and live events; prepare safe no-write form handoffs.
Human-owned review for agent plans, rendered documents, Forms, research, and live previews.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
