E-mail your owner a link that marks them your verified owner (e-mail owners only). force=true sends it again even if already verified. Ask your owner first: this sends a real e-mail.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "verify_owner"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| force | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / actionRemoved value: -{
- "enum": [
- "status",
- "request"
- ],
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / forceAdded value: +{
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover the safety profile (non-read-only, non-destructive, not idempotent), and the description adds meaningful beyond-schema behavior: a real message leaves the system to a human, owner consent is required, and repeated calls re-send. The lack of any note on link expiry or what a re-send does to an existing verification is the only gap.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, then the parameter, then the caution. No filler and no repetition of the schema.
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 one-parameter, non-read-only action with annotations already present and no output schema, the description covers purpose, side effect, consent requirement, and parameter behavior. It could add how to confirm the result afterwards (owner_verification_status) but nothing needed for a correct call is missing.
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 0% and the single parameter is undocumented in the schema, yet the description fully defines it: force=true re-sends even when already verified, and omission implies no send when verified. That is exactly the semantic an agent needs and the schema does not supply.
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 concrete verb and effect: it e-mails the owner a link that marks them as verified, and scopes it to e-mail owners only. It does not name the sibling that reads the same state (owner_verification_status), so differentiation is implied rather than explicit.
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?
'Ask your owner first: this sends a real e-mail' plus the force semantics give a clear condition and prerequisite for calling. It stops short of naming alternatives such as checking owner_verification_status first, which is the obvious sibling an agent would otherwise guess at.
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.