Create a persistent engagement namespace for authorized security testing, linking targets and an optional objective, then return the server-generated ID.
Create a persistent engagement namespace and return its server-generated ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| targets | Yes | ||
| objective | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only discloses that the namespace is persistent and that the ID is server-generated; it does not cover permissions, duplicate-name behavior, target semantics, or side effects expected for a create mutation.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The essential action and result are stated immediately.
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 create mutation with three parameters and zero schema descriptions, the description is too thin. Although an output schema exists, the required inputs and their expected content are left entirely unexplained.
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 0%, and the description mentions none of the three parameters (name, targets, objective). It adds no semantic meaning beyond the bare schema property names.
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 ('Create') and resource ('persistent engagement namespace'), and adds the return behavior. It clearly differs from list/get/plan siblings by the creation verb, but it does not explicitly name or reference alternatives.
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 when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. An agent cannot tell from the description alone when to call this instead of engagement_plan, engagement_get, or workspace tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.