chat_quick_actionsGenerate suggested quick actions for a client conversation by client ID, and optionally skip cached results to get fresh suggestions.
Suggested quick actions for a client conversation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fresh | No | Skip the local cache | |
| bci_id | Yes | Client id |
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=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context of its own, such as caching implications of the 'fresh' parameter or what the returned suggestions represent.
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?
The description is a single short sentence with no wasted words and is front-loaded with the resource being returned. It is concise, though its brevity contributes to other gaps rather than being a structural flaw itself.
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 tool with no output schema, the description does little to explain what 'quick actions' are, what shape the response takes, or how the result relates to a client conversation. The annotations cover safety, but the definition is not complete enough for an agent to understand the return context.
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 parameters documented ('bci_id' as Client id and 'fresh' as Skip the local cache). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 identifies the resource as 'suggested quick actions for a client conversation,' but it omits a clear verb such as 'get' or 'list' and does not distinguish this tool from siblings like chat_conversations or chat_messages. The purpose is inferable but vague.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to use it, or which sibling tool to choose instead. The description only names the resource and leaves all usage context to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.