Ask a project chat advisor a context-rich question and wait for the reply; optionally target a specific advisor or request a task check before completion.
Ask the chat's advisor and wait for its answer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | An advisor, if there are several. | |
| task | No | For a check of this task before done. | |
| question | Yes | With context. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Input schema / properties / question / descriptionPrevious value: -"What you want advice on, with the context the advisor needs."New value: +"With context."Input schema / properties / task / descriptionPrevious value: -"The task this is about, for a check before you mark it done."New value: +"For a check of this task before done."Input schema / properties / to / descriptionPrevious value: -"A particular advisor's name, if the chat has several."New value: +"An advisor, if there are several."v0.14.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is partially covered. The description adds the non-obvious blocking behavior ('wait for its answer'), which is useful, but it does not explain what side effect makes the call non-read-only, whether it times out, or what the response contains.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise but arguably under-specified rather than efficiently informative.
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?
This is a 3-parameter tool with no output schema, and the description leaves important gaps: what the advisor answer looks like, whether asking has side effects, and how to use the task-check parameter. It is not complete enough for an agent to call it confidently in ambiguous situations.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema for 'to', 'task', or 'question'; it does not clarify how to choose an advisor or when a task check is appropriate.
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 names a clear verb ('ask') and a resource ('the chat's advisor'), and adds that the call waits for the answer. However, 'advisor' is vague and it never differentiates this tool from siblings such as hub_answer, hub_send, or hub_task, leaving an agent unsure when this is the right call.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The agent is not told how this differs from hub_answer or hub_send, nor when to pass 'to' vs 'task'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.