Anakin

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

wire_write_action

Destructive

Run a state-changing web action such as submitting a form, adding to cart, or posting content. Provide action_id and optional credential; the tool polls the async job and returns the result.

Instructions

Run a Wire WRITE action — one whose type is "write" (it performs a state-changing interaction on the target site): submit a form, add an item to a cart, post or send content, update account settings. Discover action_ids first with wire_discover or wire_catalog and confirm the action's type is "write"; params must match that action's parameter schema. Most write actions need auth — pass a credential_id from wire_identities or wire_login. This tool transparently polls the async job to completion and returns its result. It does not execute payments or transfer funds; such actions are refused. For data extraction that does not change state (type "read") use wire_read_action instead.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`params`	No	The action's input parameters. Shape depends on the action — use its parameter schema from discovery. Omit for actions that take none.
`action_id`	Yes	The action to run (from wire_discover / wire_catalog).
`identity_id`	No	Optional identity selector — the server resolves a credential from it (alternative to credential_id).
`credential_id`	No	Required when the action's auth_mode is "required"; honored when "optional"; ignored when "none". Get one from wire_identities or wire_login.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`data`	No	Present when completed — the action's extracted/returned data.
`status`	Yes
`credits_used`	No
`execution_ms`	No
`retry_after_ms`	No	Present while processing — server's suggested poll delay.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.4.1Sep 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true; the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context on top: it 'transparently polls the async job to completion and returns its result' and refuses payments/transfer actions. It reinforces the state-changing nature consistently with destructiveHint, but doesn't add nuance about irreversibility or failure behavior — hence not a 5, but clearly above baseline.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Five information-dense sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and examples before moving to preconditions, auth, async behavior, and exclusions. Every sentence earns its place, though there is slight redundancy in stating the action type is 'write' both in the opening and in the discovery confirmation instruction.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given an output schema exists (so return values are covered), the description covers the essentials: discovery preconditions, auth handling, async polling behavior, prohibited payment actions, and sibling routing. Minor gaps remain — what 'refused' looks like at the API level and whether write actions are idempotent — but nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and each parameter already has a rich description (auth_mode conditions for credential_id, identity_id as alternative, source from wire_identities/wire_login). The description mostly restates what the schema says — 'params must match that action's parameter schema' and credential sourcing — adding only the general framing that 'most write actions need auth'. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the semantic weight.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource ('Run a Wire WRITE action') and clarifies what 'write' means with concrete examples (submit a form, add an item to a cart, post content, update account settings). It explicitly differentiates from its sibling wire_read_action by stating that read-type, non-state-changing extraction belongs there.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit preconditions: discover action_ids with wire_discover/wire_catalog and confirm the type is 'write'. It also states when auth is needed (pass credential_id from wire_identities or wire_login) and when to choose the alternative tool ('For data extraction that does not change state (type "read") use wire_read_action instead'). No ambiguity remains about 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.