Saves the reporter's email once so it can be reused as the contact identity for all incident notices filed through the server.
Guarda el email del comunicante (se pregunta UNA vez y se reutiliza; es la identidad del aviso).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | Yes | idioma | |
| userEmail | Yes | email del comunicante |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations the description carries the full burden. It discloses a meaningful behavioral trait — the email is stored once and reused, serving as the notice's identity — but says nothing about overwrite semantics if called again, side effects, or auth requirements for a mutation tool.
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 no waste; the verb and resource lead, and the parenthetical clarifies reuse semantics rather than padding. Slightly terse for the tool's complexity but structurally sound.
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 two-parameter setter with no output schema, the description covers purpose and reuse behavior, but omits the lang parameter's role and return/side-effect expectations. Adequate minimum viable coverage with clear gaps.
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%, with both required parameters documented ("email del comunicante", lang enum), so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides; 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?
States a specific verb ("Guarda") and resource ("el email del comunicante"), and adds that this email is the identity of the aviso, which sets it apart conceptually from get_identity. It does not explicitly name the sibling it complements, but the save-versus-get distinction is inferable from the verb.
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?
"se pregunta UNA vez y se reutiliza" implies a usage pattern — call it once and the value persists — which is useful context. However it never says when to call this versus get_identity, nor any preconditions or exclusions, leaving the routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.