resume_relancesCounts due follow-ups per channel (email, phone, mail) for a specified date, using read-only Postgres data to summarize follow-up workload.
Compte les relances dues par canal (email, telephone, courrier) à une date donnée (lecture seule).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | Date de référence (AAAA-MM-JJ). Par défaut : aujourd'hui. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so 'lecture seule' merely repeats structured data. It does add useful behavior beyond annotations by enumerating the return breakdown (email, telephone, courrier), though with no output schema the actual return shape (object keyed by channel? totals only?) is still unknown.
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?
One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. Every clause carries information.
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?
Adequate for a zero-required-parameter read-only aggregate: purpose, channel breakdown, date and safety are all covered. Missing the disambiguation from 'relances_dues' and any hint of the response structure, which matter for an agent choosing between the two tools.
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 coverage is 100% and the single 'date' parameter is fully documented with format and default in the schema. The description only echoes 'à une date donnée' without adding format or default detail, so baseline 3 applies.
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 ('Compte') and resource ('relances dues') plus the grouping dimension (canal) and reference date, so an agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It never names or contrasts with the sibling 'relances_dues', so the count-vs-list distinction must be inferred.
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 statement of when to use this aggregate instead of the sibling 'relances_dues', and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only usage signal is implicit in the verb 'Compte'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.