Send a shop a request through its public form. No sign-in; needs the form key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| No | |||
| phone | No | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| address | No | ||
| details | No | ||
| form_key | Yes | ||
| sms_opt_in | No | The customer checked the box to get texts about this request. Needs phone. Saved as pending until they text YES. | |
| preferred_times | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / sms_opt_inAdded value: +{
+ "description": "The customer checked the box to get texts about this request. Needs phone. Saved as pending until they text YES.",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it only discloses that no sign-in is required and a form key is mandatory. It does not say that a request record is created, whether the shop is notified, what validation failures look like, or whether retries are idempotent — significant gaps for a 9-parameter mutation 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?
Two tight sentences with the precondition front-loaded and no filler. The brevity is efficient, though it borders on under-specification for a tool of this complexity.
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 9-parameter, nested-object, annotation-free mutation with no output schema, the definition is thin. The auth and form-key facts are the most valuable pieces present, but return behavior and field semantics remain unaddressed.
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 11% (just sms_opt_in), so the description must compensate, yet it explains only form_key. Ambiguous fields such as title vs name, the required nested address object, preferred_times format, and the email/phone roles are left entirely to the schema's type constraints.
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 gives a clear verb and resource: 'Send a shop a request through its public form.' It is distinguishable from generic request tools by emphasizing the shop's public form, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with close siblings like requests_formCreate or forms_submit.
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?
'No sign-in; needs the form key' gives a useful precondition that implies when this tool applies (unauthenticated/public intake), but there is no explicit when-to-use versus requests_create, requests_formCreate, or forms_submit, and no stated 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.