Optionally submit a usefulness rating for an owned session. Requires consent to storage and founder review. Do not include private transcripts or secrets.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| issue | No | ||
| rating | Yes | ||
| comment | No | ||
| consent | Yes | ||
| session_id | Yes | ||
| account_ref | No | Native connector: persistent individual-agent scope. Reuse the same reference on every call; omit to use the existing default account. | |
| aggregate_consent | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / account_refAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Native connector: persistent individual-agent scope. Reuse the same reference on every call; omit to use the existing default account.",
+ "maxLength": 80,
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context beyond them: the mandatory consent precondition and founder review of stored data, plus an explicit warning against submitting private transcripts or secrets. It does not explain what a submitted rating/unsubmitted consent produces.
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?
Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the consent condition and a safety warning. Nothing is padded, though the terseness comes at the cost of the parameter detail noted elsewhere.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description bears more burden. It handles the consent/privacy behavior well but leaves five of seven parameters (issue, comment, aggregate_consent, account_ref usage, session_id) unexplained, which is thin for a 7-parameter 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 only 14% (just account_ref), and 7 parameters exist with only 'rating' and 'consent' loosely gestured at in the text. The enum-bearing parameters (issue, comment, aggregate_consent) and the uuid format of session_id get no explanation in either place, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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+resource+scope: 'submit a usefulness rating for an owned session'. This is clearly distinct from siblings like eclypse_reflect or eclypse_complete_session, though the description never names an alternative to route against. The 'owned session' qualifier usefully narrows applicability.
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?
Calls the action 'optionally' and states a prerequisite ('Requires consent to storage and founder review'), which is genuine usage context. However it never says when to use this versus session-lifecycle siblings, nor what happens if consent is withheld, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.
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.