Inspect and advance work orders through their lifecycle, managing verified receipts for scoped chains.
Inspect or advance work orders 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?
Annotations are absent, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It indicates both reading ('Inspect') and mutating ('advance') operations but provides no detail on side effects, reversibility, permissions, or what 'verified receipts' implies. This leaves the agent uncertain about 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 with no wasted words, but it lacks structure—no breakdown of operations, no examples, and no front-loading of critical details. It is concise but at the expense of clarity.
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 7 parameters, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the lifecycle, valid operations, or the expected content of bundle_json or payload_json. Even though an output schema exists, the description fails to give the agent enough to use the tool 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 adds no parameter-level meaning. It does not explain that 'operation' selects inspect vs advance, nor clarify the purpose of bundle_json, payload_json, engine, now, or entity_ref. With 7 parameters and no documentation, the agent cannot confidently construct a call.
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 clear verb-resource pair ('Inspect or advance work orders') but obscures the scope with jargon like 'scoped chain lifecycle' and 'verified receipts' without defining them. It does distinguish the tool as handling work order state transitions, but the lack of concrete details makes it only partially clear.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus any alternative. The description does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, and given the vast sibling list, the agent receives no help in selecting this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.