mttr_progress_linkA private link to the person's progress page: their sites, every read, what each changed, and what this agent has asked. Signed with this key; it lapses after the days asked (30 if none, 90 at most) or when the key is rotated. Hand it only to the person.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | How many days the link lasts, from 1 to 90. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: the link is signed with the current key, expires after the requested days with a default of 30 and maximum of 90, and lapses if the key is rotated. It also discloses the privacy constraint that the link should be handed only to the person, which is important handling guidance not captured by the annotations.
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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed immediately by the important expiry and handling constraints. Every clause contributes useful information without repetition.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains what the link exposes, how long it lasts, and who should receive it. It does not explicitly state the return value format or whether repeated calls produce distinct links, leaving a small gap.
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% and the single parameter already documents the 1-to-90 range. The description still adds useful meaning by specifying the default of 30 days when none is provided, which is not present in the schema.
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 establishes that this creates a private progress-page link, listing what the page contains and emphasizing that the link is private. The verb is implied rather than stated outright, and no sibling tool is named, but the resource is specific enough for an agent to distinguish it from general reporting tools.
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 phrase 'Hand it only to the person' gives a clear recipient restriction, which implies the intended use case: sharing a person's own progress with that person. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use it.
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.