agreement_checklistThe before-you-send-it checklist for one agreement: every missing field is listed, and terms whose absence cuts one way are flagged neutrally -- as written, what the gap means for both parties -- such as no termination clause or an uncapped liability. Reads only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agreement | Yes | The agreement id, e.g. SA-2026-0003, or the client name when only one agreement has it |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explicitly states 'Reads only,' which is critical behavioral transparency given no annotations are provided. It also discloses the neutral, non-judgmental framing of flagged terms ('as written, what the gap means for both parties'), which helps the agent understand the tool's output tone and scope. It doesn't detail output format, but the read-only disclosure carries significant weight.
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 two sentences with zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded ('before-you-send-it checklist'), and the second sentence adds valuable detail about flagging behavior without redundancy.
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 single-parameter read-only tool with 100% schema coverage, the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool does, its read-only nature, and the neutral framing of flagged terms. The only minor gap is not describing the exact output structure, but with no output schema and a simple checklist concept, the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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 schema already documents the single parameter. The description adds context by implying the parameter is an agreement identifier, but it doesn't add meaning beyond the schema's example and explanation. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ('check'), a specific resource ('one agreement'), and a clear scope ('before-you-send-it checklist'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like agreement_get and agreement_list by focusing on missing fields and gap analysis, not just retrieval or listing.
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 clearly implies when to use this tool: before sending an agreement, to review missing fields and flagged terms. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'before-you-send-it' framing and the focus on missing fields provide clear context that separates it from agreement_get (retrieval) and agreement_render (formatting).
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.