Open an owned SolidRPC support ticket to resolve account or service issues by providing a subject and message; never include wallet keys or unrelated secrets.
Open an owned support ticket. Never include wallet keys or unrelated secrets.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | Yes | ||
| subject | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint=false annotation already signals a mutating operation, and the description adds a genuinely useful security constraint against including secrets. It does not say what is returned (e.g., a ticket ID), whether tickets are visible to the user, or any rate/eligibility limits.
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?
Two short sentences that state what the tool does, then its main pitfall, with nothing redundant. It is on the sparse side, but every sentence is useful.
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 simple two-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the action and the key safety caveat. It leaves out what happens after the call and how to fill in the fields, which an agent would need to use it confidently.
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 has to explain the parameters, but it never mentions subject or message. The names are self-explanatory, yet no guidance is given on expected content, length, or format.
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?
"Open an owned support ticket" gives a specific verb and resource, which is unambiguous and distinct from all siblings (manage, networks, keys, billing). The word "owned" is undefined but does not obscure the action.
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?
It gives no guidance on when to use this versus other support or billing tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only guidance is a security constraint, not a routing rule.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.