Mark a follow-up / action done. Get the action_id from get_person (relationship.actions).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action_id | Yes | The action to complete. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | Whether noticed completed the operation. | |
| data | No | The operation result when ok is true. | |
| error | No | A human-readable error when ok is false. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {
+ "data": {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "description": "The operation result when ok is true.",
+ "properties": {
+ "completed": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "completed"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "error": {
+ "description": "A human-readable error when ok is false.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "ok": {
+ "description": "Whether noticed completed the operation.",
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "ok"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description aligns with the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true) without contradiction. It does not add extra detail about side effects or idempotency beyond what annotations already convey, but the action is simple and well-covered.
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?
Two short sentences, directly stating the purpose and providing a source for the parameter. No fluff or redundant information.
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 simple one-parameter action, the description is complete. It covers what to do and where to get the ID. No output schema is given, so return values need not be explained.
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 schema only says 'The action to complete', but the description adds valuable context: 'Get the action_id from get_person (relationship.actions)'. This enriches the parameter meaning significantly.
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 verb 'mark' and the resource 'follow-up / action done', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like update_action and delete_action by focusing on the 'complete' action.
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 a specific usage hint: 'Get the action_id from get_person (relationship.actions)', guiding where to source the ID. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like update_action, but the purpose is clear enough for typical use.
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.