Route a target's rejection reason back to the origin issue.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| npub | No | ||
| reason | Yes | Why the target declined (which DRY boundary / repo actually owns it). | |
| by_repo | Yes | The repo that declined the escalation. | |
| dpop_token | No | ||
| origin_repo | Yes | The ORIGIN repository the escalation routes back to. | |
| origin_issue | Yes | The origin issue number. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description is too brief to disclose behavioral traits: side effects, permissions, idempotency, or return behavior. With no annotations provided, the agent lacks crucial 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 description is a single sentence with no redundancy. However, it could be structured to include key usage context, but it remains efficient 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?
Given the tool has no output schema, no annotations, and 6 parameters (some undocumented), the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, workflow integration, or necessary preconditions for this routing operation.
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 67% (4 of 6 parameters have descriptions). The description does not add extra semantics beyond the schema. It is adequate but not compensatory for the undocumented 'npub' and 'dpop_token' parameters.
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 tool routes a rejection reason back to an origin issue. The verb 'Route' and the nouns 'rejection reason' and 'origin issue' identify the core action. However, it lacks differentiation from sibling tools like 'cypher_note_rejection', limiting clarity.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The agent has no context to choose this over related tools like 'cypher_note_rejection'.
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.