Record a spam complaint to suppress the address and unsubscribe it from the stream. Safe for repeated replay.
Record a spam complaint against an address: writes a stream-scoped suppression and flips the subscription to unsubscribed. Idempotent, so a feedback loop can replay it safely.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | The complaining address | |
| permalink | Yes | Broadcast stream permalink |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Even with destructiveHint and openWorldHint annotations already set, the description adds valuable behavioral detail: it writes a stream-scoped suppression, flips subscription status, and is idempotent so replays are safe. This goes beyond the annotation flags and does not contradict them.
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 tight sentences front-load the primary action, immediately state side effects, and add the idempotency caveat. No filler or repetition of schema content.
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 two-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and relevant annotations, the description covers purpose, effects, and replay safety. No output schema exists, but the description does not need to explain return values for this simple write operation.
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 coverage is 100%, giving baseline 3, but the description adds relational meaning by tying 'address' to the complaint target and 'permalink' to stream scope ('writes a stream-scoped suppression'). This is more than the schema's one-line parameter descriptions provide.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Record a spam complaint against an address') and details the exact effects: a stream-scoped suppression plus an unsubscribed flip. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like list_bounces or remove_subscriber.
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 gives actionable context: it is for spam complaints and is safe for feedback-loop replays because it is idempotent. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as remove_subscriber, so it misses the top score for explicit when-not/alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.