Analyze payment gateway errors to identify likely cause, severity, and retry safety. Provides recommended next steps for resolution.
Triage a payment gateway error string or log excerpt. Returns the likely cause, what to check next, a severity, and whether a retry is safe.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | The error message, response body, or log excerpt. | |
| multiline | No | Treat the input as many log lines instead of one. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It does disclose the core behavioral trait well by enumerating return values (cause, next steps, severity, retry safety). However, it never explicitly states the operation is non-destructive/read-only (only implied by 'triage') and says nothing about edge cases such as empty input, unrecognized formats, or whether triage is heuristic versus calling an external service.
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 tight sentences with zero filler. The purpose is front-loaded first, then the return contract is enumerated. Every clause earns its place, and the length is proportionate to the tool's simplicity.
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?
Since there is no output schema, the description correctly takes on the job of explaining return content, which it does thoroughly. Both parameters are covered by the schema, and complexity is low. The only minor gap: it could note the format expectation for text (e.g., an excerpt length limit or what 'multiline' affects) to further reduce ambiguity.
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 100% — both 'text' and 'multiline' are fully documented with type, requirement, and a description. The tool description's 'error string or log excerpt' roughly mirrors what the schema already says, adding only marginal enrichment (framing 'text' as an excerpt) rather than genuinely new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Triage') and resource ('payment gateway error string or log excerpt'), and enumerates exactly what it returns: likely cause, what to check next, severity, and retry safety. Though there are no siblings to distinguish from, the purpose is unambiguous and concrete.
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 domain is clearly scoped to payment gateway error strings or log excerpts, which effectively conveys when to use it. With no sibling tools, there are no alternatives to exclude, but the 'when' is implicit rather than explicitly framed — no explicit statement like 'use when a payment fails with an unknown downstream reason'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.