Record advisory session summaries, insights, and action items to preserve context and support follow-up across conversations.
Log an advisory session for continuity. Call this at the end of meaningful conversations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| summary | Yes | Brief summary of what was discussed | |
| lenses_used | Yes | Which advisory lenses were active | |
| action_items | Yes | Action items agreed upon | |
| key_insights | Yes | Key insights from the session |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. 'Log an advisory session for continuity' clearly indicates a persistent write action, and the usage timing adds useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention side effects, whether the log can be retrieved later, or any safety implications beyond the act of logging.
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 with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the usage trigger is stated immediately after. Every word earns its place.
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 logging tool with four fully documented required parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose and trigger. It could mention that logged sessions are preserved for later reference, but the phrase 'for continuity' implies this sufficiently.
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 each parameter already has a clear definition. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, which is acceptable given the schema already documents all four required fields.
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 states a specific verb ('Log'), a clear resource ('advisory session'), and the purpose ('for continuity'). It also distinguishes this from sibling tools by framing it as a session-logging action rather than an ingest, profile, or goal operation.
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 gives explicit timing guidance: 'Call this at the end of meaningful conversations.' It does not name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when this tool applies.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.