blackboard_add_itemAdd a new item to the shared blackboard for multi-agent collaboration. Specify title, content, type, tags, and author to commit the item directly.
Commit a new item directly to the shared blackboard.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tags | No | ||
| type | No | concept | |
| title | Yes | ||
| content | Yes | ||
| author_name | No | MCP Agent |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations to provide hints, the description carries the full burden. It says 'Commit' but does not disclose whether the item is immediately visible, whether approval is required, or what happens on conflict or error. The side effects are vague, leaving an agent uncertain about the tool's impact.
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, short sentence that is easy to parse. It avoids filler and directly communicates the core action.
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?
The description does not mention the output or return value (despite an output schema existing), possible errors, or how this tool fits with the rest of the blackboard workflow. Given the complexity of having multiple similar blackboard tools, this lack of context leaves an agent uncertain about the tool's place and consequences.
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% — the schema provides names and types but no descriptions for title, content, tags, type, or author_name. The tool description adds no parameter explanations, so the agent must guess the meaning and constraints of each field, especially content and type semantics.
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 states a clear verb ('Commit') and resource ('new item' to 'shared blackboard'), but it does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling tool blackboard_propose_input, which also adds items. The word 'directly' hints at a bypass, but it is not spelled out.
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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as blackboard_propose_input or blackboard_approve_proposal. The description lacks any explicit 'use this when' or 'use that instead' context, which is critical given the presence of several related blackboard tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.