Set or change the journey intake answers on the workspace. Input requires expectedVersion plus at least one of mode, goal, retagTiming.
| 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. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions setting/changing answers but does not describe side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or what happens to existing answers. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey the purpose and key input requirements. There is no wasted text or unnecessary detail.
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 (nested input object, mutation, no output schema), the description is somewhat lacking. It does not explain the response format, error handling, or success/failure indicators. However, the input constraints are well-covered, making it minimally adequate.
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 only describes 'input' as a generic object, but the description adds critical constraints: it must contain 'expectedVersion' and at least one of 'mode', 'goal', 'retagTiming'. This adds significant value beyond the schema. Other parameters have adequate descriptions in the schema itself.
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 sets or changes journey intake answers on the workspace. It uses specific verbs ('Set or change') and the resource ('journey intake answers'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but given the large number of siblings, the purpose is clear enough.
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 guidance on required input fields ('Input requires expectedVersion plus at least one of mode, goal, retagTiming'), which helps ensure correct usage. However, it lacks any indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it specify prerequisites or when not to use it.
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.
Many tools are clearly scoped (e.g., `create_sulvo_ad_unit` vs `delete_sulvo_ad_unit`), but there is confusion with tools like `run_publisher_revenue_audit` and `get_publisher_revenue_audit_checklist` which sound like they could overlap. Also, `start_sulvo_signup` and `create_sulvo_signup_account` seem to operate on different stages of signup but could be confused at a glance.
The naming convention is generally consistent with a `verb_sulvo_noun` pattern (e.g., `create_sulvo_ad_unit`, `delete_sulvo_ad_unit`). The `get_` and `run_` prefixes are used somewhat inconsistently (e.g., `run_publisher_revenue_audit` vs `get_publisher_revenue_audit_checklist`), and some tool names feel a bit verbose, but overall patterns are recognizable.
With 40 tools, the server covers a massive surface area including signup, activation, reporting, and auditing. While each tool has a specific purpose, the number feels somewhat bloated for a single server, suggesting it could be split into more focused sub-servers (e.g., `sulvo-signup`, `sulvo-reporting`). It is on the high end of 'appropriate'.
The tool set appears very complete for the Sulvo ecosystem, covering everything from account creation (`create_sulvo_signup_account`) to auditing (`run_agentic_readiness_audit`) and activation (`submit_sulvo_activation_workspace`). The only minor gap is the lack of a direct way to start signup beyond step 1, but this is documented as an API limitation, not a tool gap.
