Sync onboarding artifacts like CONTEXT.md or AGENTS.md to the workflow service. Keeps journey and repository onboarding docs up to date by pushing local artifact content to the workflow service.
Sync an onboarding artifact (e.g. CONTEXT.md) to the workflow service.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | Yes | ||
| journeyId | No | ||
| artifactType | Yes | ||
| repositoryAlias | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It says 'sync' but doesn't explain whether it overwrites, merges, creates, or updates, whether it requires an active journey, or what happens on conflict. For a write operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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 no waste, front-loading the verb and resource. However, it is arguably under-specified rather than concise.
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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It omits behavioral, parameter, and usage context needed to invoke 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%, so the schema only provides types, lengths, enums, and required flags. The description mentions no parameters at all – it doesn't clarify artifactType values, journeyId vs repositoryAlias usage, or content constraints. With low coverage the description must compensate, and it does not.
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?
Clear verb 'sync' and resource 'onboarding artifact' with a concrete example (CONTEXT.md). It distinguishes from siblings like workflow_submit_artifact or workflow_get_related_artifacts, though 'sync' could be ambiguous (push? pull? bidirectional?).
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 on when to use this versus workflow_submit_artifact, workflow_onboard_repository, or workflow_onboard_journey. The agent must infer context from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.