recaptcha.assessment.createScores a reCAPTCHA token and returns a 0.0–1.0 risk score with reasons to support lead-quality assessment before follow-up.
Score a reCAPTCHA token: risk score 0.0-1.0 + reasons (the lead-quality signal).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | Yes | ||
| site_key | Yes | ||
| project_id | Yes | ||
| expected_action | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output shape but nothing about token single-use/short expiry, credential requirements, failure modes (invalid/expired token), or that this is an external Google API call with possible latency/quota - all critical for a 'create'-style assessment call.
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 zero padding; the verb and resource lead and the output summary follows. It is efficient, though the extreme terseness leaves no room for the usage detail the tool needs.
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 4-required-parameter mutation/assessment call with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description is far too thin. Output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, but parameter meaning and operational behavior are missing entirely.
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 all four parameters (token, site_key, project_id, expected_action) are undocumented. The description adds no meaning for any of them - notably it never explains that expected_action must match the action used on the client side, which is the most error-prone field.
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 ('Score') and resource ('reCAPTCHA token') and even previews the return shape (risk score 0.0-1.0 + reasons), which distinguishes it from recaptcha.keys.list and recaptcha.assessment.annotate. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, but the action is unambiguous.
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 parenthetical '(the lead-quality signal)' hints at the intended use case, implying it's for lead quality gating, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or reference to the obvious alternative recaptcha.assessment.annotate (which is the natural follow-up for feedback/annotation).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.