Customer notices planned or handled for a visit (appointment reminder, on the way, arrived), with status pending, queued (handed to text, email, or both), cancelled or skipped and why. Owner or office.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| visit_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | ||
| visit_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / properties / items / items / properties / kind / enumPrevious value: -[
- "appointment_reminder",
- "on_my_way"
-]New value: +[
+ "appointment_reminder",
+ "on_my_way",
+ "arrived"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It adds useful behavioral context by naming statuses and explaining that 'queued' means handed to text, email, or both, but it does not state whether the tool is read-only, what permissions are required, or whether any side effects occur.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that packs meaningful domain detail without extraneous text. It is efficient, though slightly dense with status definitions.
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?
The description adequately explains the domain concept and statuses, and an output schema exists so return values need not be covered. However, with no annotations it omits read-only/write semantics, permissions, and usage guidance, leaving some gaps for correct invocation.
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 has 0% description coverage for the single required visit_id parameter. The description implies the tool operates 'for a visit', but it does not explicitly refer to visit_id or clarify that it expects a UUID, leaving the schema to carry most of the meaning without compensation.
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 identifies the resource as customer notices for a visit and enumerates the notice types and statuses. It is specific enough to distinguish from related visit tools, though it does not explicitly name the operation (e.g., list/get) or contrast with siblings like visits_get or visits_changeRequests.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as visits_get or visits_changeRequests. 'Owner or office' hints at the audience but does not specify selection criteria or 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.