report_stepYou're watching a broadcast and a step seems to show a secret (a key, token, password) or someone's personal information: report it. It's hidden from everyone at once, and the broadcaster decides whether to put it back. Never repeat the secret anywhere.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| key | No | For a private broadcast, its watch key | |
| step | Yes | The step number (1 is the first) | |
| reason | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Goes meaningfully beyond the annotations by disclosing the effect (hidden from everyone at once) and the reversibility model (the broadcaster decides whether to put it back) — important for an idempotent, non-destructive but state-changing report. It also adds a security norm ('Never repeat the secret anywhere'), though it doesn't say what response or confirmation the caller gets.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the scenario and action, followed by effect and a safety caveat. No filler; every sentence carries information an agent needs.
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?
No output schema exists, and the description never indicates what a successful report returns or whether it can fail. Combined with the unexplained id, step, and reason parameters, an agent calling this tool correctly for a private broadcast would have to guess about the watch key.
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 coverage is only 50%: id, reason, and step have no schema descriptions, and the description supplies none either. It never mentions the optional watch key for private broadcasts, nor what 'reason' should contain (beyond the implicit hint not to include the secret), leaving half the parameters unexplained.
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 and resource (report a step that shows a secret) with concrete examples of what counts as a secret or personal information. It does not distinguish itself from the nearby sibling hide_step, which an agent could plausibly confuse with this action.
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?
Gives a clear triggering condition: while watching a broadcast, if a step appears to expose a key, token, password, or personal information. It explains the consequence path (hidden from everyone, broadcaster decides restoration) but never mentions hide_step or any other alternative, so the when-versus-which guidance is incomplete.
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.