List your leases and their states.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vigil_key | No | DEPRECATED legacy account-wide credential, including deletion and permission issuance. Prefer the client-injected HTTP Authorization: Bearer header; omit this argument when that header authenticates the request. This is not a scoped agent token. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {}
+]Input schema / properties / vigil_key / deprecatedAdded value: +trueInput schema / properties / vigil_key / descriptionPrevious value: -"Legacy credential argument. Prefer the HTTP Authorization: Bearer header; omit this argument when that header authenticates the request."New value: +"DEPRECATED legacy account-wide credential, including deletion and permission issuance. Prefer the client-injected HTTP Authorization: Bearer header; omit this argument when that header authenticates the request. This is not a scoped agent token."Input schema / properties / vigil_key / maxLengthAdded value: +256Input schema / properties / vigil_key / minLengthAdded value: +1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the call is scoped to the caller's own leases ('your') and that the output includes lease states, which is useful context beyond the annotations. No contradiction.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the action and object. Zero waste. Very concise.
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 simple read-only listing tool with no required parameters and a deprecated optional credential, the description is sufficient. It conveys the scope and output content ('states'), and annotations cover safety. Could mention pagination or sorting, but not critical for a basic list.
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 vigil_key is deprecated and has a detailed schema description explaining to prefer the Authorization header. The tool description adds nothing about parameters, but with 100% schema description coverage and no required parameters, the schema carries the burden. Baseline is 3.
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?
States a specific verb 'List' and resource 'leases' with a meaningful qualifier 'your' and 'states' to indicate output content. Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like vigil_lease_status, which likely targets a single lease.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like vigil_lease_status or vigil_verify_lease. The phrase 'List your leases' implies a bulk listing operation, but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
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.