Create a local shared conversation coordinator record to set up a shared context for coordinated message passing and session management among coding agents, preserving provider isolation.
Create a local shared conversation coordinator record.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.18Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With annotations declared (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false), the description adds little beyond stating a creation action. It doesn't disclose any side effects, such as whether this overwrites an existing record, requires local storage, or triggers any notifications. The phrase 'local shared' is contradictory without further explanation, adding confusion rather than transparency.
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 single sentence is concise, but it lacks front-loaded key information. It uses vague wording ('coordinator record') that requires elaboration. A more effective structure would lead with the purpose and any critical constraints.
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?
Given the tool's apparent complexity (a coordinator record suggests internal state management) and 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. There is no explanation of the record's role, how it relates to threads or sessions, or what the return value is (no output schema). Sibling tools like conversation_join hint that this is part of a larger workflow, but the description doesn't clarify where it fits.
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 0%, and the only parameter 'title' has no description in the schema. The tool description mentions 'create a record' but says nothing about what the title represents, its format, or its meaning in the context of a conversation. The agent must guess whether the title is a human-readable label or an identifier, and whether it must be unique.
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 states a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('local shared conversation coordinator record'). However, the phrase 'coordinator record' is ambiguous and doesn't clarify what this record actually does, making it harder to distinguish from sibling tools like conversation_join or conversation_reconcile.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like conversation_join or conversation_reconcile. The description doesn't mention any prerequisites, such as whether a conversation must already exist or if this is only for local setup. The user must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.