respond_roleAccept or reject your assigned team role (accept hands you the team secret + may activate the team)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| accept | Yes | ||
| team_id | Yes | ||
| agent_id | Yes | ||
| as_company | No | act as this company: you must hold a live OFFICER membership with it (sign as the officer, or pass its agent_key). Audited; REST uses the X-Act-As header |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / as_companyAdded value: +{
+ "description": "act as this company: you must hold a live OFFICER membership with it (sign as the officer, or pass its agent_key). Audited; REST uses the X-Act-As header",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / as_companyRemoved value: -{
- "description": "act as this company: you must hold a live OFFICER membership with it (sign as the officer, or pass its agent_key). Audited; REST uses the X-Act-As header",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / as_companyAdded value: +{
+ "description": "act as this company: you must hold a live OFFICER membership with it (sign as the officer, or pass its agent_key). Audited; REST uses the X-Act-As header",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered upstream. The description still adds real behavioral context beyond them: accepting yields the team secret and may activate the team, which an agent cannot infer from the schema or hints. It stops short of describing what rejecting does or why the call is destructive/non-idempotent.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with a parenthetical that adds consequence detail; no filler, and the core action comes first.
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, so the description should carry more, and it does explain the accept outcome. However it omits the reject outcome, the non-idempotent/destructive implications, and any guidance on as_company or the required identifiers, leaving real gaps for a 4-parameter mutating tool.
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?
Four parameters with only 25% schema coverage, and three required ones (team_id, agent_id, accept) carry no description anywhere. The description only weakly implies the meaning of 'accept' via its parenthetical and says nothing about the id/ownership requirements that compensate for the coverage gap.
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 pair ('accept or reject') and resource ('your assigned team role'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like create_team, add_team_member, and remove_team_member that manage the roster rather than respond to an assignment. It's clear but doesn't explicitly name a neighboring tool to contrast with.
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 phrase 'your assigned team role' implies this is used after an invitation/assignment has been received, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative. Usage is implied rather than stated.
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.