plant_treePlant one tree in the Shared Forest for the caller. One tree per visitor per day; repeats only add growth energy. The visit counts as agent traffic. Ask the user before you call it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| idempotency_key | No | Optional retry key, for example a UUID. A retry with the same key within 24 hours returns the first visitId and plants nothing new. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate idempotentHint and destructiveHint, and the description adds valuable behavior beyond them: the daily per-visitor limit, the repeat-call effect, the traffic accounting, and the user-consent requirement. These details meaningfully help the agent anticipate side effects without contradicting annotations.
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 sentences, each earning its place: the core action, the limits and side effects, and a mandatory user-consent warning. The most important constraint is front-loaded after the action, and there is no fluff.
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 one-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core domain rule, repeat behavior, traffic impact, and consent requirement. It could additionally mention the idempotency_key retry semantics, but the schema already documents that thoroughly.
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 100% and the idempotency_key parameter is fully documented in the input schema. The description adds surrounding behavior about repeats and growth energy, but does not directly enrich the parameter's meaning, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Plant one tree in the Shared Forest for the caller.' It is clear and distinct from read-only siblings like get_forest or list_trees, but it does not explicitly name a differentiating sibling tool, so it misses the 5-level specificity.
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 gives clear usage context: one tree per visitor per day, repeats only add growth energy, the visit counts as agent traffic, and the agent must ask the user before calling. It does not mention when to prefer an alternative tool, but the exclusionary guidance is strong enough for a 4.
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.