activate_emergencyTrigger a pre-authorized emergency pathway by supplying pathway ID, trigger evidence, and expiry. Use it when emergency conditions are met and authorized access must begin immediately.
Activate a pre-authorized emergency pathway with evidence.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pathway_id | Yes | ||
| trust_epoch | No | ||
| valid_until | Yes | ||
| trigger_evidence | Yes | Evidence that trigger conditions are met |
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is mostly covered structurally. The description adds only the word 'pre-authorized' as a precondition hint, and says nothing about consequences of activation, whether it can be reversed, or what authority is required.
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?
A single short sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.
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 non-idempotent mutation tool with no output schema and only 25% parameter coverage, the description is too thin: no precondition detail, no post-activation behavior, and no explanation of the required validity window. An agent could invoke it but could not confidently predict or verify the outcome.
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 only 25%, so the description carries the burden — and it only alludes to trigger_evidence ('with evidence') while saying nothing about pathway_id, valid_until, or the trust_epoch default. The one parameter whose semantics matter most (the validity window) is entirely unexplained.
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 specific verb and resource ('Activate a pre-authorized emergency pathway'), which is far clearer than a tautology. It implies a distinction from the sibling define_emergency_pathway (activation vs. definition) but never names it explicitly, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus define_emergency_pathway, no statement of prerequisites (e.g., that the pathway must already exist), and no exclusion or fallback condition. The agent must infer all routing from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.