Send FlexYield an enterprise wishlist: what would need to be true for you to run on FlexYield (chains, SLAs, compliance, features, prices; max 1000 chars) plus a contact email. The founders reply by email. No authentication required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | Contact email address for the reply | ||
| items | Yes | Your wishlist, free text |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully states that no authentication is required, that replies come by email from the founders, and that the wishlist has a 1000-character limit. This goes well beyond a bare 'submit' statement.
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?
The description is a single tightly packed sentence with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by content guidance, delivery expectation, and authentication status. Every clause earns its place.
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 two-parameter submission tool with no output schema and no nested objects, the description covers the purpose, required content, length limit, contact flow, and auth requirement. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly.
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 input schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic detail by enumerating example wishlist categories and the max character count, giving the agent a clearer sense of what to put in 'items'.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Send FlexYield an enterprise wishlist') and specifies the content of the wishlist (chains, SLAs, compliance, features, prices) plus a contact email. It is distinct in purpose from most siblings, though it does not explicitly name alternatives like join_waitlist.
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 explains what to include and that the founders reply by email, but it does not state when to use this tool versus join_waitlist, submit_feedback, or create_ticket. There are no explicit exclusions or alternative routing cues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.