Submit credentials for an action ticket blocked with creds_required. Stored ephemerally in Redis (15-min TTL, single-use GETDEL), never written to Postgres or logs. remember_for_session is accepted for compat and ignored — the session-reuse bucket was removed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | Yes | ||
| ticket_id | Yes | ||
| remember_for_session | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It clearly reveals important behavioral traits: ephemeral Redis storage with 15-min TTL, single-use GETDEL semantics, no persistence to Postgres or logs, and treatment of remember_for_session as a no-op. It doesn't explicitly state what happens after successful submission or on failure, but the security-relevant behavior is thoroughly covered.
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?
Compact two-sentence description that front-loads the purpose and then gives the essential behavioral caveats. Every clause adds value.
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?
Given the tool's security-sensitive purpose and absence of annotations, the description covers the critical behavioral context: ephemeral storage, TTL, one-time read, no persistence, and the compatibility flag. It doesn't explicitly describe return values, but an output schema may cover that; the main residual gap is what form the fields object should take.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify the remember_for_session parameter as a compatibility no-ophots. However, it doesn't explain what 'fields' should contain or how ticket_id is used, leaving the two required parameters underspecified.
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: 'Submit credentials for an action ticket blocked with creds_required.' This clearly identifies the operation and its trigger condition, distinguishing it from sibling tools like actionlayer_resume_job or actionlayer_get_action_ticket.
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?
The description specifies exactly when to use the tool: when an action ticket is blocked with creds_required, which gives clear contextual guidance. It doesn't explicitly describe when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the trigger condition strongly implies the required context.
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.
