Save customer personal information to BeezUP for store management and configuration.
Save user personal information
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "SavePersonalInfo"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | No | Request body |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description provides no behavioral details beyond the name. Without annotations, it fails to disclose whether this is a create or update operation, whether it overwrites existing data, permissions required, or any side effects. The agent has no insight into the tool's behavior.
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, very short sentence, which is concise. However, it is too terse to be informative, sacrificing substance for brevity. It earns its place but does not fully serve the purpose of aiding tool selection and invocation.
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?
Given the complexity of a 'save personal info' operation (likely involving numerous fields, update vs create behavior, validation), the description is grossly incomplete. No output schema or annotations exist to compensate, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool correctly.
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?
While schema description coverage is 100% (the sole parameter 'body' has a description), the description is extremely generic ('Request body') and adds no meaning. The tool description does not elaborate on what fields or structure the body should contain, leaving the agent without useful guidance on parameter semantics.
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 'Save user personal information' clearly identifies the verb (save) and resource (user personal information), which provides a basic understanding of the tool's purpose. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like SaveCompanyInfo or SaveProfilePictureInfo, which also perform save operations on specific user-related data.
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?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it specify prerequisites, context, or constraints. The agent receives no guidance on selecting this tool over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.