Log deploys, launches, posts, emails, or ads with timestamps so future traffic spikes within 24 hours can be linked to possible causes.
Record something that may move traffic (deploy, launch, post, email, ad). Future spikes within 24h after it list it as a possible cause. Log what you ship or run.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ts | No | ISO timestamp; defaults to now. | |
| kind | No | ||
| label | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
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. It does disclose a meaningful downstream trait: future spikes within 24h will list the annotation as a possible cause. It omits other behavior the agent would want — whether annotations can be edited or deleted, idempotency, and any permission requirements.
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?
Three short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, and the parenthetical examples ride along compactly. 'Log what you ship or run' is slightly redundant with the opening sentence, but the overall density is high.
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 3-param, 1-required write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, examples, and the key downstream effect, so it is close to adequate. It still leaves the required 'label' semantics and edit/delete lifecycle unaddressed, which matters for correctly invoking a write tool.
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 only 33% (only 'ts' is documented), so the description must compensate. It partially does: the parenthetical maps to the 'kind' enum values and 'Log what you ship or run' hints at 'label' content. But the required 'label' param's format and 200-char limit are left entirely to the schema, and 'kind' defaults are unstated.
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'/'Log') and the resource's role: an annotation that ties events like deploys and launches to traffic. The 24h spike-causation framing makes the tool's purpose unambiguous against read-only siblings like find_traffic_spikes and explain_spike. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so it earns a solid 4 rather than 5.
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 examples '(deploy, launch, post, email, ad)' and the closing 'Log what you ship or run' tell the agent clearly what situations warrant a call. However there is no exclusion guidance (e.g., not for organic changes) and no mention of alternatives, so it is clear context without boundaries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.