Confirm a physical fact: a business is open and operating, a property exists and matches its listing, signage, occupancy, condition, an address is real. Returns geotagged timestamped photos, a 60-second egocentric clip, a yes/no with confidence score, and a two-line signed attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | ||
| criteria | Yes | ||
| deadline | No | ||
| checklist | No | ||
| budget_cap | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses return artifacts: geotagged timestamped photos, a 60-second clip, a yes/no confidence score, and a signed attestation. However, it omits important operational traits such as execution model, permissions, cost implications, privacy considerations, and how deadline or budget constraints affect behavior.
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 tight sentences, front-loading the purpose before listing return artifacts. The examples and return details are relevant, though the list of verifiable facts is somewhat broad.
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?
This is a complex physical-verification tool with five parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage. The description explains the purpose and return artifacts, but it leaves parameter meanings and key operational constraints unexplained, so it is not complete enough for reliable invocation.
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 description coverage is 0% for five parameters, and the description does not explain any parameter semantics. It does not clarify what 'criteria' should contain, what 'checklist' is for, how 'deadline' is used, or what 'budget_cap' constrains, leaving the schema's bare types as the only guidance.
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 uses a specific verb, 'Confirm,' and clearly identifies the resource as physical facts about a location, with concrete examples such as business operation, property existence, signage, occupancy, and address validity. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like inspect_property or witness_event, but the overall purpose is clear.
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 examples imply when the tool is useful, such as verifying a business is open or a property matches its listing, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions, prerequisites, or sibling routing are provided.
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.