Verify every stable placement container and the inert loader for the locked 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Verify', implying a read-only check, but does not confirm safety (e.g., no side effects), auth requirements, or what happens on failure. The agent gains little insight beyond the tool name.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it is extremely terse and could benefit from additional structure or detail without losing conciseness.
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 has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what 'verify' entails, the meaning of 'stable placement container' or 'inert loader', or the role of parameters like 'outputFormat' and 'idempotencyKey'. The agent would lack essential context for proper usage.
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% (3 of 4 parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds no additional parameter context, leaving the schema to carry the burden. Baseline is 3 due to high coverage, and the description does not improve upon it.
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 identifies the action ('Verify') and the targets ('every stable placement container and the inert loader for the locked revision'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'verify_sulvo_signup_ads_txt' by focusing on placement installation, though it does not explicitly call out the differentiation.
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 (e.g., other verification tools). The description gives no context about prerequisites, follow-up steps, 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.
