Accept or decline a received coffee chat request by providing the request ID and choosing accept or decline, so you can manage networking invitations.
Accept or decline a received coffee chat request.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | Whether to accept or decline the request | |
| request_id | Yes | The coffee chat request ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.2.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. For a mutation tool it omits whether the action is reversible, whether the sender is notified, and what accepting actually triggers (e.g., opening a chat thread).
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?
A single efficient sentence with the action front-loaded and zero filler. It is well-sized but leaves no room for the context a mutation tool needs.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and a destructive-ish state change (accepting/declining a request), the description should say what happens after the call and what constraints apply. It leaves the agent guessing about side effects.
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 coverage is 100% with both parameters documented, and the action enum values are mirrored in the schema description. The description adds no format or constraint details beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb pair (accept/decline) and an unambiguous resource (a received coffee chat request). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like send_coffee_chat_request beyond the word 'received'.
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?
The word 'received' implies this applies to incoming requests rather than sending one, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., must be the recipient), and no named alternative tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.