Update a claimed Verfi session’s expiration date to extend or adjust consent validity, respecting the 30-day minimum, 5-year maximum, and monthly update limits.
Update the expiration date of a claimed session. Must be 30+ days from now, max 5 years from claim date. Rate limited: 3 updates/month per session.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| verfiID | Yes | Verfi session ID | |
| expirationDate | Yes | New expiration date (ISO 8601) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does deliver real behavioral context: the 30-day minimum, 5-year maximum from claim date, and a 3-updates-per-month rate limit. However, it omits who may perform the update (ownership/authorization), whether the change is reversible, and what happens on rejection.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then constraints, then rate limit. Every clause carries actionable information with no filler.
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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, bounds, and rate limiting — most of what an agent needs before calling. The remaining gap is authorization/ownership requirements and error behavior.
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%, so both parameters are documented there, yet the description adds genuinely new meaning: the valid range for expirationDate (30+ days out, max 5 years from claim date), which is a validation rule not present in the schema. This is the kind of semantic detail that prevents a bad 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Update the expiration date of a claimed session') and scopes it to claimed sessions, which distinguishes it from claim/unclaim siblings. It does not explicitly name which sibling to use instead for other mutation needs, but the operation itself 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?
The word 'claimed' implies the precondition that the session must already be claimed, but no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or alternative tool routing is given. An agent must infer that verfi_claim_session is a prerequisite.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.