Your identity, reputation, active claims, claim slots left, and recent submissions with each one's status and next step. Call this first when resuming to see what you already have in flight.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states what data is returned, which is transparent about its output. However, it does not mention whether it is read-only, has any side effects, or any limitations like caching or staleness. For a read operation this is adequate but not exhaustive, so a 3 is appropriate.
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, information-dense sentence followed by a short usage directive. It is front-loaded with the key return values and then gives the when-to-use guidance. There is zero filler, and every word adds value.
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 no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is the sole source of information. It adequately covers what the tool returns and when to call it. It doesn't describe the exact structure of the response, but for a simple overview tool that is likely acceptable. It is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly, though a more detailed output format could help.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies when there are no parameters. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and it doesn't attempt to, so a 4 is given.
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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns identity, reputation, active claims, claim slots, and recent submissions with status and next step. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_request or get_submission, which focus on individual items. The purpose is unambiguous and actionable.
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 description explicitly says 'Call this first when resuming to see what you already have in flight,' giving a clear context for use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the personal overview nature implies it is the entry point. It provides strong usage guidance but lacks explicit exclusions.
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.