Record manual end-to-end verification results for SDLC tasks as PASS, FAIL, or BLOCKED with evidence notes and executor, avoiding fabricated automation evidence.
Record a manual end-to-end verification result without fabricating automation evidence.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes | ||
| taskId | Yes | ||
| executedBy | Yes | ||
| evidenceNotes | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints that the operation must reflect genuine manual verification (an anti-fabrication constraint), but says nothing about write/mutation semantics, permissions, reversibility, or what happens to prior records. That is a thin disclosure for a state-mutating tool.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the key qualifier is placed prominently. Nothing in the sentence is redundant.
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 four required, fully undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too sparse for an agent to call this correctly. It supplies neither the required parameter semantics nor the mutation/authorization context that the missing structured fields would otherwise provide.
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% across four required parameters (taskId, result, evidenceNotes, executedBy), and the description adds no meaning for any of them. The PASS/FAIL/BLOCKED enum and the 1-2000 character evidenceNotes constraint are left entirely undocumented.
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 verb (record) and resource (manual end-to-end verification result), and the qualifier 'without fabricating automation evidence' usefully distinguishes it from automated equivalents. It does not explicitly name its closest siblings (workflow_record_accessibility_result, workflow_record_tagging_result), but the purpose is unambiguous.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The phrase 'manual' implies it should be used only for hand-run verification rather than automated runs, but no alternative tool or condition is named, leaving the agent to infer the routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.