Submit a gem.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | title | |
| category | Yes | category | |
| photo_url | No | photo_url | |
| description | No | description | |
| website_url | No | website_url | |
| location_text | No | location_text | |
| submission_type | No | submission_type |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / propertiesAdded value: +{
+ "category": {
+ "description": "category",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "description": {
+ "description": "description",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "location_text": {
+ "description": "location_text",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "photo_url": {
+ "description": "photo_url",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "submission_type": {
+ "description": "submission_type",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "title": {
+ "description": "title",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "website_url": {
+ "description": "website_url",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+}Input schema / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "title",
+ "category"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. "Submit" implies a write/mutation but discloses nothing about authorization, moderation, side effects, or whether the submission is public or private. It offers essentially no behavioral context.
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 two-word description is concise but under-specified rather than efficient. Like the "Process" calibration example, brevity here reflects missing substance, not good structure.
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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is drastically incomplete. It does not explain what a gem is, what submission entails, or how any parameter affects the outcome.
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 reported as 100%, which sets a baseline of 3 even though the description adds no parameter meaning. The schema descriptions themselves are tautological (e.g., "title" for title), but the rule prescribes a baseline of 3 for high coverage.
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?
"Submit a gem" states a verb and object, but does not define what a 'gem' is or distinguish this tool from siblings such as share_local_favorite, save_listing, or upvote_listing. It essentially restates the tool name with a synonym and leaves the resource ambiguous.
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?
No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is given. Sibling tools like share_local_favorite suggest possible confusion, but the description provides no context for choosing this tool over them.
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.