Reports whether the conversation-clock alignment acceptance gate is pending, done, or waived for a podcast project.
Report the conversation-clock alignment acceptance gate status (pending/done/waived).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_path | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Input schema / properties / project_path / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / project_path / defaultAdded value: +nullInput schema / properties / project_path / typeRemoved value: -"string"Input schema / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "project_path"
-]v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but "Report" does imply a non-mutating read of gate state, and the three enumerated states tell the agent what values to expect. It does not disclose permissions, whether the report reflects unsaved session state, or any rate/scope constraints.
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 tight sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and the state enumeration in parentheses. Nothing is wasted, though the brevity contributes to the missing guidance noted elsewhere.
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?
Because an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values, and it does name the possible gate states. However, for a tool sitting in a dense alignment/ingest sibling cluster with an undocumented parameter, it leaves the agent without routing or argument guidance.
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 single parameter project_path has 0% schema description coverage and is not mentioned in the description at all, so the agent gets no meaning for it beyond its name. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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 ("Report") and a specific resource ("conversation-clock alignment acceptance gate status") and enumerates the possible states (pending/done/waived). It is distinguishable from siblings such as align_done_tool and align_waive_tool, which mutate the gate rather than read it, though it never names them explicitly.
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 never says when to call this versus align_brief_tool, align_done_tool, align_waive_tool, or ingest_verify_alignment_tool. Usage is only implied by the word "Report" - no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.