Emit an event → auto-routes to Conductor based on rules. Types: cve_critical, cloud_outage, regulation_change, security_breach, sanctions_update, audit_notice, evidence_expired, drift_detected, sla_breach, finding_overdue, daily_check, weekly_drift_scan.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| detail | No | ||
| source | No | Event source (webhook, internal, cron) | |
| entity_id | No | ||
| event_type | No | Event type (see types above) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions auto-routing to Conductor, but omits side effects, permissions, failure modes, or response behavior, which is significant for a write/action 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 concise, with a single sentence and a useful list of types. It is front-loaded with the core action and wastes no words, though the list is lengthy.
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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete: it does not explain the expected contents of detail and entity_id, the meaning of 'auto-routes to Conductor', or what the caller receives as a result.
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?
The description lists event types, adding value to the event_type parameter. However, detail and entity_id have no schema descriptions and are not explained, leaving 50% of parameters (schema coverage 50%) poorly documented.
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's function: 'Emit an event' with auto-routing to Conductor. It lists specific event types, making the purpose concrete and distinguishing it from siblings like event_log and test_webhook.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough to imply usage for sending events. It does not mention exclusions or refer to sibling tools.
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.