confirm_inquirySend an enquiry prepared with request_inquiry, once the person named has seen exactly what will be sent and agreed to be contacted. Takes the confirmation code and the same email; what is sent is exactly what was shown, and only once. It never reports success unless the message actually left.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| contact_email | Yes | The same email the enquiry was prepared with | |
| confirmation_code | Yes | The code request_inquiry returned |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare mutation, non-idempotency, open-world reach and non-destructiveness; the description goes beyond them by promising the payload is exactly what was displayed, that sending happens only once, and that success is never reported unless the message actually left. That is meaningful disclosure about delivery guarantees and truthful result reporting.
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 tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the action and its prerequisite, with the delivery and success-reporting guarantees appended. No filler or restated title.
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?
Two required scalar parameters, no output schema, and the description covers the precondition, the exclusivity of the call, and the meaning of the result. 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.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the schema descriptions already explain that the code comes from request_inquiry and the email must match the prepared enquiry. The description restates 'the confirmation code and the same email' without adding format, validation, or expiry detail, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 (send an enquiry) and explicitly ties it to the sibling it depends on (prepared with request_inquiry), so an agent can distinguish it from request_inquiry without opening either schema. The scope of what is sent is also specified.
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 an explicit precondition for use: the enquiry must already have been prepared and the named person must have seen exactly what will be sent and agreed to be contacted. It also states the once-only constraint, which functions as a when-not-to-repeat rule.
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.