Preview importing pending NWP app submissions into New World Scheduler congregation data before applying changes, so you can review what will be updated first.
Preview importing pending NWP app submissions into NWS congregation data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ui_text | No | ||
| data_types | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. 'Preview' hints that nothing is written, but the description never states that no data is modified, whether a token or handle is returned for a later commit, whether authentication is needed, or how pending submissions are scoped.
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 compact sentence with no filler, and the key noun phrase is front-loaded. Its brevity is a virtue, but it comes at the price of detail rather than because of efficient coverage.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, but the definition still omits what 'preview' produces, what happens to pending submissions, and what the two parameters do. For a two-parameter tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps.
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 0% and neither parameter (ui_text, data_types) is mentioned. The description does not explain what either one filters or overrides, leaving both effectively undocumented.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: preview importing pending NWP app submissions into NWS congregation data. It is clearly readable as a dry-run counterpart to nws_app_commit_import, but that distinction comes only from the 'preview' prefix, and no sibling is ever named.
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 says nothing about when to use this versus nws_app_commit_import or nws_app_cancel_import, nor what condition makes previewing appropriate. The workflow, preview and then commit or cancel, is left entirely to inference from names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.