Record an intermediate progress milestone or action in the active transaction, including optional details, to track work before completing or auditing the change.
Record an intermediate progress milestone or action within the active transaction.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | Brief description of the action taken. | |
| details | No | Additional details or outcome notes. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the key precondition that a transaction must be active, but it does not state whether calling this mutates state, whether milestones are persisted or returned, what happens if no transaction is active, or whether repeated calls are allowed.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to stating the action, the scope, and the transaction precondition.
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 simple two-parameter recording tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and precondition. It is minimally adequate but leaves key behavioral questions (persistence, error behavior, relationship to auditing) unanswered, which matters given the absence of annotations.
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 both parameters ('action' and 'details') are already documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides, which meets the baseline expectation when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 (record) and resource (intermediate progress milestone/action) scoped to the active transaction, which distinguishes it from omnistate_init, omnistate_begin, and omnistate_finish. It does not explicitly contrast with omnistate_audit or omnistate_status, so sibling differentiation is incomplete.
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 phrase 'within the active transaction' implies the precondition for use and suggests this is a mid-transaction step rather than a terminal one. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus omnistate_audit, omnistate_status, or omnistate_inspect_diff, and no when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.