Signal Learning insights
sdr_learning_insightsRead-only. Learned weight per signal type and conversion from real outreach outcomes, for one search or per search across the workspace.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| search_id | No |
sdr_learning_insightsRead-only. Learned weight per signal type and conversion from real outreach outcomes, for one search or per search across the workspace.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| search_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / search_idAdded value: +{
+ "format": "uuid",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It states read-only and identifies real outreach outcomes as the data source, but it omits permissions, freshness/recompute relationship, and return 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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with read-only and then purpose/scope. There is no redundant restatement of the title or tool name.
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 low-complexity read-only analytics endpoint with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers safety, data source, and scope. It could clarify return granularity or relationship to recompute, but it is sufficient for correct 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 sole optional search_id has 0% schema description coverage. The description compensates by explaining that including it scopes results to one search while omitting it returns workspace-wide results, adding meaningful semantics beyond the schema.
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 specifies the retrieved artifact: learned weight per signal type and conversion from real outreach outcomes, plus scope for one search or the workspace. It is clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby tools such as sdr_signal_stats or sdr_learning_recompute.
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 explains the search_id-based mode, single search versus workspace-wide, which gives useful usage context. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or alternative tool routing.
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.