Save your email and optional phone number once so Las Palmas de Gran Canaria report submissions can identify you and reuse your contact details.
Guarda email y teléfono del comunicante (se preguntan UNA vez y se reutilizan; el uuid se genera solo).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| userEmail | Yes | email (identifica tus avisos) | |
| userPhone | No | teléfono español |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two non-obvious traits: the UUID is auto-generated (so the agent must not supply one) and the values are persisted for reuse. But it omits overwrite/update semantics on repeat calls, validation failures, and persistence side effects.
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 compact sentence with the core action front-loaded and the caveats parenthesized. Nothing is wasteful, though the dense parenthetical slightly compromises scannability.
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 2-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is stored and the once-only rule, which is the essential minimum. It still leaves ordering relative to create_aviso and repeat-call behavior unstated.
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%, so both parameters are already documented as 'email' and 'teléfono español'. The description adds only the reuse-once framing, which is not parameter-level syntax or format detail, so the 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+resource in Spanish: stores the communicant's email and phone. The implied save/read contrast with the sibling get_identity is reasonably inferable, though it is not named explicitly, so sibling differentiation is soft rather than explicit.
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 parenthetical 'se preguntan UNA vez y se reutilizan' implies this should be set once and reused across the session, which is useful usage context. However it never says when to call it relative to siblings like create_aviso, nor what happens if called again, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.