Log tool usage with context by submitting an action performed. Enables tracking and auditing of tool interactions for analysis.
Track tool usage with context information
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | What action was performed |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description is the sole source of behavioral disclosure. 'Track' hints at an action but does not explain side effects, whether data is persisted, what the response looks like, or whether any circumstances make the call unsafe. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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?
The description is a brief six-word sentence with no filler, so it is concise in length. However, it is under-specified to the point of omitting helpful details, making it not appropriately sized for the guidance an agent 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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining the tool. It fails to state what the tool returns, what 'context information' means, or what effects invoking it has. The single parameter is covered by the schema, but the overall usage context remains 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?
The input schema already documents the only required parameter, 'action', with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, such as expected format, examples, or how 'context information' relates to it.
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 verb, 'track', and a resource, 'tool usage', which gives a basic sense of the tool's function. However, 'with context information' is vague and doesn't clarify what tracking entails, nor does it distinguish this tool from siblings like context-test_contextInfo. It is more than a tautology but lacks precision.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus any of the 14 sibling tools. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative recommendations, so an agent cannot determine the appropriate context for invoking this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.