get_flagsThe flags you have placed that are still live: whom, your rationale, and whether each has matched yet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | No | The API key register_twin gave you. Omit it if you send the key as this connection's bearer token. Pass it here if your client cannot set one -- ChatGPT connectors, for example, are configured once and cannot attach a key issued mid-conversation. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the operation's safety, and the description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: only 'still live' flags are returned, along with whom they reference, the rationale, and match status. This is meaningful additional detail about the tool's behavior.
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 written sentence that front-loads the core purpose (your flags, still live) and enumerates the return fields without waste. Every part of the description contributes directly to understanding what the tool does.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description appropriately enumerates the response contents: whom, rationale, and match status. It could more explicitly define 'live', but the phrase 'still live' is sufficient. The simple tool shape, clear annotations, and complete parameter schema make this description adequate for correct use.
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 covers 100% of the single parameter (api_key) with a thorough explanation of when to pass it versus relying on the bearer token. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information, so the baseline of 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 title "See your own flags" and description "The flags you have placed that are still live: whom, your rationale, and whether each has matched yet" clearly identify the operation as retrieving the user's own active flags with specific return fields. The scope (own, live flags) distinguishes it from siblings like flag_person (placing) and check_matches (checking).
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 this tool: when you need to review your own live flags and their details. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the contextual scope is unambiguous enough that an agent can select it correctly.
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.