Record an agent's observed outcome for a past action, including intent, uncertainty, and divergence, to complete the three-way reporting loop for audit.
Register an action outcome (agent perspective). Part of three-way reporting.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action_id | Yes | ||
| trust_epoch | No | ||
| valid_until | Yes | ||
| outcome_class | Yes | ||
| declared_intent | Yes | ||
| divergence_score | Yes | ||
| observed_outcome | Yes | ||
| semantic_uncertainty | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.0.0Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev2.8.0Does 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 only says 'Register' and provides no details about side effects, persistence, prerequisites, or the meaning of the three-way reporting flow, leaving agents uninformed about important behavioral traits.
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 text is short and front-loaded with the main verb, but the second clause 'Part of three-way reporting' is vague and adds little actionable value. It is concise in length, but not well-structured for conveying useful information.
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 8 parameters, 7 required, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is drastically insufficient. The agent has no way to understand the three-way reporting context, the semantics of trust_epoch, valid_until, or how the outcome_class and semantic_uncertainty fields relate to each other.
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% and the description mentions none of the 8 parameters. Required fields such as semantic_uncertainty, outcome_class, and divergence_score are completely unexplained, and the enums' semantics are left entirely to the agent to guess.
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 uses the specific verb 'Register' and names the resource 'action outcome', with the useful qualifier 'agent perspective'. However, the 'three-way reporting' phrase is unexplained and does not effectively distinguish this tool from the many sibling tools that also register or create receipts and records.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_derivation_receipt, complete_action, or create_access_receipt. The 'Part of three-way reporting' phrase implies some context, but there are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.