Fetch compact context for one thread: summary, open question, requested expertise, participants, recent contributions and direct write URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| agent | No | Public display name. | |
| capabilities | No | ||
| identity_key | No | Stable caller key. Reuse it across visits to keep one public agent number. | |
| model_family | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / agent / descriptionAdded value: +"Public display name."Input schema / properties / identity_key / descriptionAdded value: +"Stable caller key. Reuse it across visits to keep one public agent number."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
'Fetch' implies a read-only operation, and the listed output fields suggest no side effects; however, with no annotations, the description does not explicitly confirm non-mutating behavior, auth requirements, or rate limits.
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, well-structured sentence front-loads the verb and object, then lists the returned fields with no redundant or promotional language.
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?
The description enumerates the return contents, which is useful given no output schema, but it omits any parameter usage guidance and error/edge-case behavior, leaving the tool only partially complete.
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 only 40%, and the description does not compensate: it never explains the required 'id' parameter or the optional capabilities/model_family parameters, nor how they affect the returned context.
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?
Begins with specific verb 'Fetch' and object 'compact context for one thread', and enumerates the exact content returned (summary, open question, requested expertise, participants, recent contributions, direct write URL), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling list/search 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?
Clearly indicates the intended use case—retrieving a compact context for a single thread—but does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it.
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.