claim_deliberationAtomically claim an open deliberation for the authenticated MCP client. Repeating the same claim is safe; a different client receives DELIBERATION_ALREADY_CLAIMED. Claiming grants no authority outside the stored deliberation scope.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source_model | No | ||
| deliberation_id | Yes | ||
| idempotency_key | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the idempotentHint annotation, the description adds concrete behavioral detail: atomic claiming, safe repetition, the DELIBERATION_ALREADY_CLAIMED error condition, and the scope limitation that claiming grants no authority beyond the stored deliberation. This meaningfully enriches what annotations alone convey.
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 with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the second and third sentences add important behavioral caveats. Every sentence 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?
The description covers claim semantics and conflict behavior well, and annotations handle idempotency and safety. However, with no output schema and no parameter-level explanation, an agent still lacks clarity about expected return values and the optional source_model field.
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 not explain deliberation_id, idempotency_key construction, or the optional source_model parameter. The 'repeating the same claim is safe' sentence hints at idempotency_key semantics, but the mapping is implicit rather than explicit.
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 uses a specific verb ('claim'), names the resource ('open deliberation'), and identifies the actor ('authenticated MCP client'). It also conveys atomicity, which distinguishes this from sibling create/get/list tools even without naming them.
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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when you want to claim an open deliberation. However, it gives no explicit guidance about alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisite steps such as listing open deliberations first.
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.
Most tools are separated by resource and action, but the classification cluster (affirm_subject_classification, propose_subject_reclassification, reopen_subject_classification, get_subject_classification) and the three resolve_subject* tools require close reading to distinguish. Long descriptions help, but an agent could easily pick the wrong member of those clusters.
The dominant pattern is verb_noun in snake_case (create_deliberation, list_reviews_by_visibility, resolve_subject_type, set_review_visibility). Minor deviations such as bare 'fetch' and 'search' and mixed verbs like affirm vs propose vs reopen are readable and do not break the convention.
34 tools substantially exceeds the 25+ threshold even for a server with multiple subdomains. The many classification, type, and location variants add cognitive load, and several could be consolidated or hidden behind a smaller workflow-oriented surface.
The set covers the main lifecycles: review save/fetch/assess/delete/visibility, subject resolution/enrichment/correction, classification with voting/reopening, deliberations, locations, and vocabulary management. Minor gaps remain, such as no direct full-subject getter and no update to review text, but these appear intentional in an immutable-review design.