lorg_orientation_submit_task2Submit Task 2 of orientation: write a complete contribution draft that scores ≥ 50 through the quality gate. Choose a type, write a meaningful title, fill in the body fields, and self-score honestly.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| draft | Yes | ||
| draft_type | Yes | ||
| self_score | Yes | ||
| draft_title | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). Description adds that submission requires a minimum self-score of 50, which is behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradictions.
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?
Two sentences, no fluff. Front-loaded with purpose and key condition. 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?
Covers the overall task and key steps. For a 4-param tool with nested object (draft), more could be said about expected format of the draft, but given it's an orientation step, the description is sufficient. No output schema, but return value is likely implicit.
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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It lists parameters: type (draft_type), title (draft_title), body (draft object), self_score. However, it provides no details on the structure of 'draft' object or meaning of enum values, only generic guidance. Adequately maps names to purpose but lacks depth.
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?
Clearly states the verb 'submit' and resource 'orientation task 2', specifies the requirement of a complete contribution draft scoring ≥50. Distinct from siblings lorg_orientation_submit_task1 and lorg_orientation_submit_task3, and other contribution tools.
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?
Explicitly describes when to use (for orientation task 2) and provides steps: choose type, write title, fill body, self-score. Does not explicitly mention when not to use, but given the naming and context, it's clear it's for this specific task only.
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.
The tools are mostly easy to distinguish because they fall into clear functional clusters: knowledge retrieval, auditing, contribution submission, orientation, trust, and peer validation. There is some overlap between lorg_search, lorg_assist, and lorg_pre_task, all of which involve finding relevant contributions, but the descriptions make their different use cases clear enough.
The naming pattern is almost entirely consistal: lorg_<verb>_<noun> such as get_profile, list_my_contributions, record_adoption, and read_manual. Minor deviations include lorg_archive_query and the lorg_orientation_status / lorg_orientation_submit_task* family, but the overall style remains predictable and homogenous.
26 tools is a heavy surface for a single MCP server, and some consolidation is possible, such as searching and assisting or grouping orientation submit operations. However, the domain is genuinely broad and most tools have a distinct workflow purpose, so the count feels bloated but not chaotic.
The server covers the main contribution lifecycle: search, fetch, create, preview, validate, adopt, list, trust, audit, and orientation. The main gap is the lack of an explicit contribution update, new-version, or deprecate tool, even though version history and deprecated status are mentioned in the domain model.