Inspect or advance incident records through the scoped chain lifecycle, providing verified receipts for each operation.
Inspect or advance incidents through the scoped chain lifecycle and verified receipts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| now | No | ||
| engine | No | ||
| operation | No | list | |
| entity_ref | No | ||
| project_id | Yes | ||
| bundle_json | Yes | ||
| payload_json | No | {} |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Inspect or advance' does signal both read and mutating behaviors, but there is no disclosure of side effects, required permissions, reversibility of 'advance', or what 'verified receipts' implies. The safety profile is incomplete.
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 sentence with no wasted words, and the main verbs are front-loaded. However, it is undersized for a tool with seven parameters and two apparent modes of behavior, so it is concise but not appropriately informative.
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?
Despite an output schema existing, the input side is severely under-described. An agent cannot determine what values 'operation' accepts, what 'bundle_json' should contain, or how 'project_id' scopes the lifecycle. For a complex dual-purpose tool with no annotations, this is far from complete.
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%, so the description must compensate, but none of the seven parameters are explained. Parameters like 'operation', 'bundle_json', 'entity_ref', 'now', and 'engine' are left to inference, and the dual-mode operation is not tied to any parameter values.
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 names a specific resource ('incidents') with distinct verbs ('Inspect or advance') and references a clear domain ('scoped chain lifecycle', 'verified receipts'). However, 'scoped chain lifecycle' and 'verified receipts' are jargon that an agent would need to understand from elsewhere, and there is no explicit differentiation from sibling tools.
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 is given about when to use this tool instead of alternatives, nor when to choose 'inspect' versus 'advance' behavior. The operation parameter defaults to 'list', but the description does not explain how to select between inspection and advancing an incident.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.