Start or check the atomic promotion of a staged snapshot upload by upload_id; poll the same ID until pending clears, with existing validation gates deciding whether the commit succeeds.
Start or read back atomic promotion of a staged snapshot upload. pending=true is not completion; poll the same upload_id. Existing validation gates remain authoritative.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| upload_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.17.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: the operation is atomic, it is asynchronous (pending is not completion), it is polled via the same upload_id, and existing validation gates still apply. It stops short of saying what a failed or partial promotion leaves behind, but the async/atomic disclosure is valuable beyond the annotations.
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, front-loaded with the action, then the async polling caveat, then the validation constraint. The final sentence 'Existing validation gates remain authoritative' is somewhat vague about which gates and what failure looks like, but nothing is padded.
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 destructive, open-world, async mutation with no output schema, the definition covers the polling contract but leaves gaps: no description of the returned status shape, no idempotency or retry guidance, and no statement of what 'validation gates' reject or how failures surface. Adequate to call correctly, thin for interpreting results.
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 0% and the single upload_id has no description in the schema, so the description must carry the load. It does add meaning by implying upload_id identifies a previously staged upload and is reused across polling calls, but it never states the ID's origin or format explicitly.
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 and resource: 'atomic promotion of a staged snapshot upload', and clarifies the dual start/read-back mode. It doesn't name quipu_knot_stage or quipu_import_promote explicitly, but 'staged snapshot upload' plus 'upload_id' makes the pairing inferable.
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?
Gives one concrete usage rule: when pending=true, poll the same upload_id rather than treating it as done. However, it never says when to choose this over quipu_knot_stage or quipu_import_promote, nor what preconditions must hold before promotion can start.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.