Record a timestamped action, assertion, error, or note in an active QA session to log test events and provide visual evidence for later review.
Add a timestamped action, assertion, error, or note to an active QA recording.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | ||
| kind | No | note | |
| label | Yes | ||
| sessionId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a write operation ('Add') but does not disclose whether the recording must already be active, what happens if the session is not active, whether this mutates the recording, or any side effects. The term 'active' is a behavioral constraint that is not elaborated.
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?
The description is a single compact sentence with the key function front-loaded ('Add a timestamped action...'). It is appropriately sized for the tool's moderate complexity, though it omits meaningful behavioral guidance.
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 mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It does not explain prerequisites (active recording), what data/kind/label are used for, failure behavior, or how this relates to the recording lifecycle managed by siblings. The term 'active' is important context that is defined nowhere.
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 must compensate, but it only names the event kinds (action, assertion, error, note), which partially explains the 'kind' parameter. It does not explain what 'data' should contain, how 'label' is used, or the role of sessionId beyond being a required identifier. The description adds some semantic context but leaves most parameters under-explained.
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 clearly states the verb 'Add' and the resource 'active QA recording', and enumerates the categories of content (action, assertion, error, note) that can be marked. It does not explicitly differentiate this from its siblings, but the term 'mark_event' and 'active QA recording' make its distinct role relatively clear.
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 description implies it is used when you want to record an event into the active QA recording, but provides no guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like start_recording/stop_recording, or what qualifies as an 'active' recording. There is no exclusion or alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.