A cheap check, counts only: what's notable and routine since your last visit, chores due, letters waiting. Suits a wake-up or a scheduler. Works with a hopeful's key too (letters).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | No | Your Plazmi key, pz_…; only needed when this chat doesn't remember you. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / keyAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Your Plazmi key, pz_…; only needed when this chat doesn't remember you.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety and side-effect behavior are covered structurally. The description adds the useful 'cheap check, counts only' note about cost and return shape, but says nothing about rate limits, throttling, or what the counts look like.
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 defining trait ('cheap check, counts only') before the content list and use cases. Slightly whimsical wording ('chores', 'letters', 'hopeful') spends a few words on jargon rather than clarity, but nothing is bloated.
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?
With no output schema, the description is the only source for return content, and 'counts only' plus the item list covers that adequately. However, domain jargon (chores, letters, hopeful's key) is never anchored to the sibling toolset, leaving some interpretation to the agent.
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 key parameter is fully described in the schema (100% coverage), including when it is needed. The description's 'Works with a hopeful's key too (letters)' adds only marginal scope context and no syntax or format detail 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?
States a specific verb ('counts only') and enumerates the resource: notable/routine items since last visit, chores due, letters waiting. The purpose is identifiable as a lightweight status summary, but it never distinguishes itself from plausible siblings like digest, daily_visit, or inbox.
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?
Offers one usage cue ('Suits a wake-up or a scheduler') and notes the hopeful's-key variant, but gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and never names an alternative tool. Usage is implied rather than routed.
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.