Re-queue stuck ECC probes by resetting their state to ready in ecc_queue, enabling retry of failed sensor tasks.
Re-queue an ECC probe/sensor by setting its state back to ready (ecc_queue). Requires WRITE_ENABLED=true
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sys_id | Yes | sys_id of the ecc_queue record |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.15.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation readOnlyHint: true contradicts the description, which describes a write operation ('Re-queue', 'setting its state back'). This is a serious inconsistency. Additionally, the description does not disclose any side effects, return values, or error conditions beyond the prerequisite, providing minimal behavioral transparency beyond the contradictory annotation.
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, focused sentence that front-loads the primary action and includes the necessary prerequisite. It is concise and well-structured, with no wasted words.
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?
Given the simplicity (one parameter, full schema coverage) and the absence of an output schema, the description could have been sufficient, but the contradiction with the readOnlyHint and the lack of any behavioral or error context make it incomplete. It does not explain what happens after re-queuing or what the tool returns, leaving the agent without full operational clarity.
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?
The schema already provides 100% coverage of the single parameter sys_id with a clear description. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or syntax details about the parameter, so it aligns with the baseline for full schema coverage.
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 action: 'Re-queue an ECC probe/sensor by setting its state back to ready (ecc_queue).' It specifies the verb, resource, and the table involved, making the tool's purpose distinct enough even without explicit sibling differentiation. The mention of the requirement adds context, but it doesn't explicitly contrast with other ECC-related tools.
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 when to use this tool (to re-queue an ECC probe) and gives a prerequisite (WRITE_ENABLED=true). However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or name alternative tools. The requirement is useful context, but the absence of exclusions or alternatives leaves the guidance implicit rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.