storage.pin_bagPin/import an existing public TON Storage bag by bag id.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"bagId": "<bagId>"
},
"name": "storage.pin_bag"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| bagId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-idempotent. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as side effects of pinning, auth requirements, or return behavior. It does not contradict annotations but contributes no additional transparency.
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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. No unnecessary words.
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, and the description does not explain what the operation returns. It also doesn't clarify how pinning differs from other storage operations or what happens after pinning. The tool is simple but the description leaves key context gaps.
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 mentions 'bag id' corresponding to bagId, but provides no explanation of the optional 'name' parameter. Semantics are incomplete.
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 clearly states the verb ('Pin/import') and the resource ('existing public TON Storage bag'), with the method ('by bag id'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_bag (new bag) and list_bags (listing).
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 context is clear: use for existing public bags, not for new ones. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the phrase 'existing public' implies when not to use (for private/new bags). No exclusions are stated, but the guidance is adequate.
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.