Draft outreach to a demo contact in a chosen format: email, text, linkedin, or talking_points. Demonstrates Centric's Draft As feature — the draft is grounded in the contact's brief context. Demo only; nothing is sent or logged.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| format | No | Draft format. Defaults to email. | |
| contact | Yes | Contact id or name, e.g. 'Isabella Chen' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait that nothing is sent or logged, and that the draft is grounded in the contact's brief context. This is valuable transparency about side effects and grounding, though it omits details like return format or error 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?
Two sentences with no waste. The first sentence states the purpose and formats; the second adds essential behavioral context. Compact and front-loaded.
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 simple demo tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, behavior, and demo-only nature. It doesn't explicitly state what the tool returns, but the purpose of drafting strongly implies it. Complete enough for the tool's simplicity.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions the format choices already present in the schema enum, but adds no extra meaning beyond that. It doesn't elaborate on the contact parameter or clarify the default behavior beyond what the schema already states.
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 action ('Draft outreach'), the target (a demo contact), and the formats (email, text, linkedin, talking_points). It uniquely identifies the tool as the drafting capability among siblings like brief_me and get_contact_profile.
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?
Provides clear context: it's a demo tool that sends nothing and logs nothing, implying it should be used for demonstration purposes. However, it doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives or say when not to use it beyond the demo-only constraint.
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.