Port one agent's configuration to the successor model.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"agent": "<agent>"
},
"name": "convoy_port"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent | Yes |
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 carries the full behavioral burden, but it only implies a migration/mutation. It does not disclose permissions, reversibility, what happens to the original configuration, or failure behavior.
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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise, though its brevity contributes to gaps handled in other dimensions.
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?
For a migration tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required parameter, the description is too sparse. It does not explain effects, return behavior, or parameter expectations sufficiently for reliable invocation.
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 single parameter is named "agent" and the description indirectly indicates it identifies the agent whose configuration is ported. However, schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no format, identifier type, or example for the parameter.
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 a specific verb, "Port", and resource, "one agent's configuration", with the target being the "successor model". It is clear enough to distinguish from ledger/status/readiness siblings, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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?
It implies the operation is for migrating agent configuration to a successor model, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives among the convoy_* tools. An agent must infer usage entirely.
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.