Queue documents (datasheets, SOPs, MOPs, certifications) for ingestion into a physical-operator onboarding session. Document URLs may be local:// for files dropped in the chat console or full https:// URLs. Auth-required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Session id returned by pcc_onboard_session_start. | |
| doc_urls | Yes | URLs of documents to ingest. Mix of local:// and https:// is fine. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context that the operation is authentication-required and that URLs may be local:// or https://, but it does not disclose what happens after queueing, whether ingestion is asynchronous, or how errors are surfaced.
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 plus an auth note. It front-loads the core purpose, then clarifies URL formats and the auth requirement without wasted words.
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 queueing/mutation tool with no output schema and only two required parameters, the description covers purpose, input URL forms, and auth. It still omits what the tool returns, whether queued documents are processed asynchronously, and how to check ingestion progress via the related status tool.
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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the accepted URL forms but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, making 3 the appropriate baseline.
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?
States a specific verb (queue/ingest) and resource (documents) scoped to a physical-operator onboarding session. Clear enough for an agent to know what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as pcc_onboard_session_scrape or pcc_onboard_session_build_agent.
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 implies usage by tying ingestion to a physical-operator onboarding session and by requiring a session id. However, it does not state when to use this tool versus other onboarding-session tools, nor does it name alternatives or exclusions.
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.