respond_to_introApprove or decline an introduction request, share selected disclosed fields, and reply with an optional message.
Respond to an introduction request. Approve to share your disclosed information, or decline.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | No | Optional response message | |
| approved | Yes | Whether to approve the introduction | |
| intro_id | Yes | Intro request ID | |
| disclose_fields | No | Fields you're willing to share back |
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?
The description adds real context that annotations don't carry: approving shares disclosed information, so the agent understands the disclosure consequence. However, it omits the irreversibility and non-idempotency implied by destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and says nothing about what happens to a declined request.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the branching outcome; no filler. Slightly under-specified rather than padded, but structurally clean.
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 four-parameter mutating tool with no output schema and a destructive annotation, the description covers the core action but leaves irreversibility, disclosure scope details, and post-response effects unaddressed.
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 100%, so the four parameters are already documented; the description reinforces the meaning of approved and hints at disclose_fields but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (respond) and resource (introduction request), and names the two outcome modes (approve/decline), which separates it from the counterpart request_intro. It does not explicitly name siblings, but the action is unambiguous.
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 explains what approve versus decline means, which implicitly tells the agent when to pick each branch, but gives no condition for responding at all versus ignoring, delegating, or using request_intro, and no prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.