Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

SwiftProbate

by com.swiftprobate
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

mark_heirs_complete

Destructive

Record that the user has finished telling you about the estate's heirs and family. Call this the moment they say that's everyone — "no other children", "there's no spouse", "that's all the heirs". This is what turns "Surviving spouse" and "Minor children" in your Estate Context from "Not yet provided" into a definite answer; until you call it those facts stay unknown and you will keep having to ask about them. BEFORE calling: make sure every person they have named is already saved with create_heir, including a surviving spouse. Call it on the SAME turn the user says the list is complete; do NOT ask them to confirm a second time first. Exception: if NO heirs are recorded, the user must explicitly confirm there are none before the list can be marked complete — pass confirmed_no_heirs: true only after they have. Changes the heir-collection flag and derived estate facts; does not start paid checklist generation.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
estate_idYesThe estate to act on. Call list_my_estates first to get this id.
confirmed_no_heirsNoSet true only when no heirs are recorded AND the user has explicitly confirmed the decedent left no heirs at all (no spouse, children, grandchildren, parents, siblings or other relatives). Never set it on your own inference.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / confirmed_no_heirs
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Set true only when no heirs are recorded AND the user has explicitly confirmed the decedent left no heirs at all (no spouse, children, grandchildren, parents, siblings or other relatives). Never set it on your own inference.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent; the description adds real context beyond them — it changes the heir-collection flag and derived estate facts, and explicitly does not start paid checklist generation. It doesn't address reversibility or why the operation is flagged destructive, which is the remaining gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core action, then prerequisites, then the exception — a logical progression. It is on the long side and repeats the 'facts stay unknown' consequence twice, but nearly every sentence carries operational information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Two simple parameters, no output schema, full schema coverage; the description supplies timing, prerequisites, exception handling, and side-effect boundaries. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by stating the exact condition under which confirmed_no_heirs should be set — after explicit user confirmation that no heirs exist — which the schema states more compactly. estate_id meaning is left to the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource — recording that the user finished naming heirs — and implicitly distinguishes itself from create_heir (which saves individuals) and mark_assets_complete. An agent knows exactly what state transition this performs.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit triggers ('the moment they say that's everyone', with example phrasings), a prerequisite (every named person saved via create_heir, including a spouse), a same-turn instruction, and an exception path for zero heirs. Very strong, though it does not name a sibling as the alternative for the zero-heir case.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All SwiftProbate toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources