Inspect customer onboarding progress and advance stages using scoped chain lifecycle and verified receipts.
Inspect or advance customer onboardings 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 must disclose behavioral traits, but it does not. It mentions 'advance' implying mutation, but does not specify side effects, required permissions, or what 'verified receipts' entails. It also does not explain the 'operation' parameter's role or potential destructive actions. Lacks transparency about state changes.
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 not effective. It does not waste words, but it also does not provide enough substance to earn its place. The jargon-heavy phrasing obscures rather than clarifies, making it inefficient despite its brevity.
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?
The tool has 7 parameters, a likely multi-operation mode (operation defaults to 'list'), and an output schema, yet the description is a single vague sentence. It fails to explain the operation domain, the meaning of bundle_json, how to construct payloads, or what the output represents. It is far from complete for an agent to call correctly.
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 parameter explanations. It does not map any of the seven parameters (project_id, bundle_json, operation, etc.) to their purposes or formats. The vague reference to 'scoped chain lifecycle' does not compensate for the total absence of parameter semantics.
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 verb ('inspect or advance') and a resource ('customer onboardings'), and hints at a lifecycle concept. However, 'scoped chain lifecycle' is vague jargon and does not clearly distinguish this from sibling onboarding tools like legal_enterprise_customer_onboarding_loop or hr_onboarding_assist. The dual verb 'inspect or advance' suggests a polymorphic tool but without specifics.
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. No mention of conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description does not reference sibling tools or clarify whether this is for inspection or advancement in a specific workflow stage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.