Review and advance insurance claims through their lifecycle using verified receipts and scoped chain operations.
Inspect or advance insurance claims 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 provided, the description must independently disclose behavior. It hints at read ('Inspect') and mutation ('advance') but never specifies side effects, prerequisites, or what 'scoped chain lifecycle' and 'verified receipts' entail. This vagueness leaves the agent unable to anticipate consequences of invocation.
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, but its second half ('scoped chain lifecycle', 'verified receipts') is unhelpful jargon that does not earn its place. Front-loading is weak because the vague qualifier distracts from the core action.
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 7 parameters, 0% schema descriptions, no annotations, and an ambiguous operation parameter, the description is far from sufficient. The output schema exists but cannot compensate for the lack of guidance on how to form arguments or what behaviors different operations perform.
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 description provides no explanation for any of the 7 parameters (e.g., project_id, bundle_json, operation). The 'operation' parameter's default is 'list', but the description's 'advance' verb is not mapped to any parameter, leaving the agent to guess parameter usage.
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 ('insurance claims') and two high-level verbs ('Inspect or advance'), which avoids pure tautology. However, the qualifier 'through the scoped chain lifecycle and verified receipts' is opaque jargon that does not clarify the tool's actual function or differentiate it from sibling tools like company_claims or company_expense_claims.
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 versus alternatives. The description does not mention context, exclusions, or how it relates to sibling tools such as company_claims, which is especially problematic given the similar names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.