Skip to main content
Glama
PhononX

Carbon Voice

by PhononX

suggest_action_items_from_message

Extract action items from a single message and get them back immediately, saved as suggested tasks for quick review.

Instructions

Extract action items from ONE message and return them immediately. USE WHEN: Turning a single message into tasks — "what did she ask me to do?". The items come back in this call, already saved with status: "suggested"; promote the ones you want with set_action_item_status. Prefer this over suggest_action_items_from_messages whenever there is exactly one message, since it needs no polling. USE INSTEAD: suggest_action_items_from_messages for two or more messages — it reasons over the whole set at once and can catch commitments that span messages, which calling this tool repeatedly cannot. create_action_item when you already know the task. FIRST: message_id comes from list_messages (field results[].id) — call it first if you don't have one. EXAMPLE: {"message_id":"msg-1"} RETURNS: Array of the created action items, each with id, title, assigned_to, due_date, notes_text and status: "suggested". An empty array means the model found nothing actionable. Runs the extraction inline, so expect this call to take a few seconds.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
message_idYesThe message to extract action items from. Exactly one — for several messages at once use `suggest_action_items_from_messages`.
response_fieldsNoDot-path allowlist to shrink the response, e.g. ["results.id","total"]. Omit for the full payload.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv2.10.0

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only include readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that items are saved with status 'suggested', that the extraction runs inline (no polling), that results come back immediately, and that it may take a few seconds. These are meaningful behavioral traits beyond what annotations imply, and there is no contradiction.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with labeled sections (USE WHEN, USE INSTEAD, FIRST, EXAMPLE, RETURNS) and front-loads the core purpose. Every section contributes value, but it is slightly verbose (~150 words). It could be trimmed slightly without losing clarity, yet the structure makes it easy to scan.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description provides all necessary context: return format (array of items with fields), status behavior, alternatives, prerequisites, and expected latency. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and interpret results. Nothing essential is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% for both parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that message_id comes from list_messages (field results[].id) and provides an example, which goes beyond the schema. However, it does not add much about response_fields beyond what the schema already states; the added context is useful but not extensive.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Extract action items from ONE message and return them immediately.' It clearly distinguishes from the sibling suggest_action_items_from_messages by emphasizing 'ONE message' vs. multiple, and mentions the alternative create_action_item for known tasks. The purpose is unambiguous and differentiates among siblings without opening schemas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit 'USE WHEN' and 'USE INSTEAD' sections state exactly when to call this tool (single message, turning into tasks) and when to use alternatives (multiple messages use suggest_action_items_from_messages; known tasks use create_action_item). It also instructs to get message_id from list_messages first if not available. This is comprehensive and leaves no ambiguity.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.