Humanize authorized text by requesting a QuillBot rewrite suggestion, returning it for review without altering your original documents.
Solicita a QuillBot una propuesta de redacción para el fragmento autorizado. Devuelve una sugerencia para revisión; no modifica documentos.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that the tool returns a suggestion and does not modify documents, which is useful context. Yet it doesn't clarify why readOnlyHint is false despite no mutation, nor does it describe external API/auth or latency behavior for an open-world 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?
Two concise sentences are front-loaded: the first states the action, the second clarifies the non-mutating, suggestion-only behavior. There is no unnecessary detail.
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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the high-level purpose and clarifies non-mutation. However, it omits important details about the input text constraints and the nature of the returned suggestion, and does not resolve the mismatch with readOnlyHint=false.
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?
The schema has one required parameter 'text' with 0% description coverage. The description only vaguely mentions 'fragmento autorizado' and does not explain constraints like max length 30000, allowed content, or format, leaving the parameter under-specified.
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 and resource: it requests a writing suggestion from QuillBot for an authorized fragment. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like quillbot_detect or quillbot_status by focusing on proposing a rewrite.
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?
It implies usage context ('fragmento autorizado') and clarifies that the result is a suggestion for review, not document modification. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives such as quillbot_detect or state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.