Submit the proven revision. Input requires expectedVersion and revisionId.
| 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?
No annotations provided. The description does not disclose side effects, idempotency behavior (only hinted by idempotencyKey parameter), or whether the mutation is destructive. The agent is left guessing about safety.
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 very short (two sentences). It is front-loaded but the second sentence ('Input requires expectedVersion and revisionId') may mislead as the required parameter is workspaceId, not those fields. It could be more precise.
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 no output schema, many sibling tools, and 4 parameters (including nested input), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the workflow context (e.g., relation to activation preflight or revision locking) or return format.
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 coverage is 75%, baseline 3. The description adds value by specifying that the 'input' object requires 'expectedVersion' and 'revisionId,' which are not detailed in the schema. This clarifies parameter usage beyond the generic schema description.
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 'Submit the proven revision,' providing a verb and object, but 'proven revision' is ambiguous. The tool name specifies 'activation workspace,' so the overall purpose is somewhat clear but lacks precision.
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 on when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., submit_sulvo_signup_documents, submit_sulvo_site_for_approval). No prerequisites or context for invocation.
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.
