agents_wakePUBLISH-SCOPED: wake an agent now; it plans and proposes (or with auto-publish, posts) immediately. Returns the conversation it woke into and its web url. Needs the publish scope.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The agent id. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| runId | Yes | ||
| conversationId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {
+ "conversationId": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "runId": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "url": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "runId",
+ "conversationId",
+ "url"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating, external-facing operation. The description adds genuinely non-redundant context: it is publish-scoped, requires the publish scope, and may post automatically with auto-publish. What actually gets destroyed/altered by a wake is not detailed, keeping it below 5.
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 'PUBLISH-SCOPED' constraint, then behavior, then return. Every clause carries information and nothing is padded.
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?
An output schema exists, so the description needn't detail return values, yet it still sketches the key result (the conversation and web url). Combined with the scope requirement and immediate-effect warning, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.
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?
Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the agent id. The description adds no extra meaning about the id (e.g. format or where to find it), so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('wake an agent now') and adds what the wake actually does (plans and proposes, or posts with auto-publish). This is far more than a restatement of the name. It doesn't explicitly contrast with a sibling, but no sibling tool performs a wake, so there is little to distinguish.
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?
Gives clear usage context: use it to wake an agent immediately, and it requires the publish scope. The auto-publish branch explains a conditional behavior. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it or a preferred alternative (e.g. agents_save for configuration).
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.