Classify an action as automatic, approval-required or denied; 0.002 USDC.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "action": {
+ "risk": "low",
+ "side_effect": "read_only"
+ },
+ "policy": {
+ "auto_approve_risks": [
+ "low"
+ ],
+ "prohibited_side_effects": [
+ "delete"
+ ]
+ }
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does disclose a concrete per-call cost (0.002 USDC), which is genuine context absent from the schema and useful for budget-aware agents. However, it says nothing about determinism, idempotency, side effects, or whether the classification is advisory versus binding — notable omissions for a policy-decision 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?
One compact sentence with the decision outcome front-loaded and the cost trailing as a secondary clause. Nothing is padded and every element carries 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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and both required parameters are fully documented in the schema. The remaining gap is usage routing against the dense set of sibling policy tools, which the description does not address.
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 the schema already documents 'action' and 'policy' and the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, enum, or format detail about either object, so it neither compensates for nor enriches 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?
States a specific verb (classify) plus the exact decision space (automatic / approval-required / denied), which tells an agent precisely what output domain to expect. It does not name or contrast with the closest siblings (inter_agent_policy_evaluator, tool_call_policy_guard), so an agent must infer the boundary itself.
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?
There is no statement of when this tool should be chosen over the many policy/preflight siblings, nor any exclusion or precondition. The only routing-relevant token is the price tag, which informs cost but not selection.
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.