dashboard_snapshotThe workspace's own KPI contract as the dashboard renders it, with the time it was built. [scope: crm:read]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | No | False when the call was refused or failed; see error. | |
| error | No | Machine-readable refusal code (a string), present only when ok is false. | |
| message | No | Human-readable explanation of a refusal (a string). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {
+ "error": {
+ "description": "Machine-readable refusal code (a string), present only when ok is false."
+ },
+ "message": {
+ "description": "Human-readable explanation of a refusal (a string)."
+ },
+ "ok": {
+ "description": "False when the call was refused or failed; see error.",
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond the structured fields: the crm:read scope requirement and the fact that the response carries the time the snapshot was built (a freshness signal).
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?
A single tightly-packed sentence with no waste, and the scope tag is clearly delimited at the end. It is front-loaded but slightly over-compressed, requiring the reader to parse 'KPI contract as the dashboard renders it'.
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?
With an output schema present, return values need no elaboration, and there are no parameters to document. The description covers what the tool returns, its freshness timestamp, and its auth scope, which is sufficient for a no-arg read tool; only the sibling-selection question is left open.
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?
Zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to compensate for, and it correctly avoids inventing parameter guidance for a parameterless tool.
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?
States a specific resource — the workspace's own KPI contract as the dashboard renders it, plus the build timestamp. It is distinguishable from marketing_snapshot and partner_overview by the 'workspace's own' qualifier, though the verb is implicit and 'KPI contract as the dashboard renders it' is somewhat abstract phrasing.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, even though sibling tools like marketing_snapshot, partner_overview, and crm_pipeline_overview clearly overlap in the snapshot/KPI space. The agent must infer which snapshot to pick.
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.