Register an ICT change request with full DORA traceability.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notes | No | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| tester | No | ||
| approver | No | ||
| patch_id | No | ||
| priority | No | ||
| change_id | No | ||
| requestor | No | ||
| test_plan | No | ||
| risk_level | No | ||
| change_type | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| implementer | No | ||
| cve_reference | No | ||
| justification | No | ||
| rollback_plan | No | ||
| scheduled_date | No | ||
| affected_systems | No | ||
| affected_services | No | ||
| implementation_plan | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'full DORA traceability', hinting at data collection but not explaining side effects, permissions, idempotency, success/failure behavior, or return format. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
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 concise sentence with no wasted words, but it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity. It lacks structure to accommodate the tool's complexity, making it too under-specified to be considered well-crafted.
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 20 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is massively incomplete. It does not explain required fields, what the tool returns, or how it fits into the DORA traceability workflow, leaving dangerous gaps for an AI agent.
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 description mentions no parameters. With 20 parameters including enums for change_type and risk_level, the description adds zero meaning to help the agent correctly populate fields beyond their names.
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 action verb 'register' with a clear object 'ICT change request' and meaningful qualifier 'full DORA traceability'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_changes' or 'change_risk_assess', making the tool's function unambiguous.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as approval_check or rollback_plan. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or typical workflows, leaving usage entirely to inference from the name.
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.