Retag-after-approval journeys: submit the bare site for Google approval (ads.txt ownership only, no tags). Input requires expectedVersion.
| 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 are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states that the tool submits a 'bare site' and mentions 'expectedVersion', but it does not explain what happens after submission, whether it is destructive, or any side effects. The idempotencyKey parameter hints at mutability, but the behavioral implications are unclear.
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: two sentences that front-load the purpose. Every word adds value, with no redundant or extraneous information.
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 objects, no output schema) and the lack of annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the overall workflow, return values, or how this step fits into the larger 'Retag-after-approval' journey. The many siblings increase the need for context.
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%, and the description adds some context: 'Input requires expectedVersion', which is not fully detailed in the schema. However, it does not elaborate on the format or constraints of expectedVersion, nor does it clarify the role of outputFormat or idempotencyKey beyond what the schema provides.
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 action: 'submit the bare site for Google approval' with the specific scope of 'ads.txt ownership only, no tags'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like verify_sulvo_site_ownership (verification) and submit_sulvo_activation_workspace (workspace submission). However, the term 'expectedVersion' is mentioned but not defined, slightly reducing clarity.
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 minimal usage guidance. It mentions 'Retag-after-approval journeys' implying a specific workflow phase, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like submit_sulvo_activation_workspace or verify_sulvo_site_ownership. No exclusions or conditions are given.
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.
