Returns the official DSB compensation form link, prepared field values, and a review checklist so passengers can verify details and submit the claim themselves.
Return the form link, prepared fields, and user-review checklist. No form is filled yet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ticket_id | Yes | ||
| journey_id | No | ||
| evidence_id | No | ||
| journey_details | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already establish that the operation is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description usefully adds that it stops before any form is filled, but otherwise provides little behavioral context about preparation dependencies, workflow effects, or failure conditions.
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, front-loaded sentences communicate the returned artifacts and the key limitation without filler. The brevity leaves documentation gaps that are scored elsewhere, but the wording itself is efficient and well structured.
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 output schema and annotations cover return structure and safety, but the description is not complete enough for this multi-input workflow tool. It leaves the form's domain, its relationship to form preparation and evidence collection, and the roles of the optional inputs unclear.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to compensate but explains none of ticket_id, journey_id, evidence_id, or journey_details. It particularly misses when the optional evidence or passenger-supplied journey details should be provided and how they affect the prepared handoff.
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 uses a clear verb and identifies three concrete handoff artifacts: the form link, prepared fields, and user-review checklist. It does not identify the specific claim form or distinguish this retrieval/handoff operation from dsb_prepare_claim_form.
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?
Prepared fields and user review imply a late-stage handoff, while 'No form is filled yet' signals that this is not a completion step. However, there are no explicit prerequisites or guidance on when to use this instead of dsb_prepare_claim_form or the evidence and journey sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.