Run the complete bounded activation preflight for the locked workspace revision.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | No | Fields required by this journey action. | |
| workspaceId | Yes | Activation workspace identifier returned by the start or status tool. | |
| outputFormat | No | markdown | |
| idempotencyKey | No | Optional retry key. Reuse it when retrying the same mutation. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or what the tool returns. The outputFormat parameter hints at output type, but this is not explained in the description.
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 sentence, which is concise and front-loaded with the verb. However, it sacrifices clarity by being too brief; additional details about the tool's purpose or behavior would improve it without excessive length.
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 complexity (4 parameters, nested input object, no output schema, and many sibling tools), the description is inadequate. It does not explain what 'bounded activation preflight' entails, what the output looks like, or how this tool fits into the broader activation workflow.
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 75%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. For the outputFormat parameter lacking a schema description, the description also provides no clarification.
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 the verb 'Run' and the resource 'activation preflight', with qualifiers 'complete bounded' and 'locked workspace revision'. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like 'start_sulvo_revenue_onboarding' or 'get_sulvo_activation_smoke_status', but the jargon may be unclear to new users.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among siblings, there are related tools like 'submit_sulvo_activation_workspace' or 'rollback_sulvo_activation', but the description does not explain the preflight's role in the workflow or any prerequisites.
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.
