Advance a Design Thinking session to its next checkpoint—gate, input, stop, or completion. Completed runs finalize automatically into a dossier and handoff specs.
Advance the session to its next halt (gate, input, stop, or completion). Completed runs are finalized automatically: Dossier, then handoff specs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does add meaningful behavior: the session advances until a halt type and completed runs are finalized automatically in a specific order. It does not mention errors, asynchrony, or state-mutation side effects, but the core behavioral contract is present.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and outcome, with no filler. The halt list and finalization sequence are compact but high-value details.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description must explain parameter meaning, return behavior, and halt handling, but it explains none of those. The finalization note is useful, yet an agent still lacks enough to know what to expect after an 'input' halt or what the call returns.
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?
The schema has a single 'name' property with only a title, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description never mentions 'name' or what it identifies, so the agent receives no semantic help for the only parameter.
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 states a specific action ('Advance') and resource ('the session') and defines the target outcome via halt types. It conveys the tool's role among sibling session tools, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from step_session.
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 guidance is given about when to choose run_session versus step_session, stop_session, resolve_gate, or submit_input. The behavior is described, but there are no conditions, exclusions, or alternative routing cues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.