Audit your lead pipeline by describing how leads arrive, are stored, who replies, and what alerts exist to reveal where inbound leads are silently dropped.
Check a plain-English description of how leads arrive, where they are stored, who replies and what alerts exist.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| description | Yes |
| 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?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it says nothing about what checking entails — validation rules, failure modes, whether it is read-only, or whether it requires a pre-existing pipeline. An output schema exists, so return shape needn't be covered, but the checking behavior itself is opaque.
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 efficient sentence with the resource front-loaded. Nothing is wasted, though the sentence is doing too little work rather than too much.
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?
Output schema handles return values and there is only one parameter, so the remaining burden is modest — but for a tool whose whole job is 'checking', not saying what the check looks for or produces leaves a real gap given zero annotations.
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%, so the description must compensate, and it partly does by specifying what the single 'description' string should contain: lead arrival, storage, reply ownership, and alerts. That is useful content guidance, but it doesn't say length expectations, format, or what happens if an aspect is omitted.
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 verb is 'check' and the resource is a plain-English pipeline description, and it enumerates the aspects the description should cover (arrival, storage, replies, alerts). But 'check' is undefined — the agent cannot tell whether this validates, scores, or critiques the text, nor how it differs meaningfully from the sibling check_pipeline.
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 on when to use this versus check_pipeline, which sits right next to it in the sibling list. Nothing indicates whether this is a pre-check, a fallback for unstructured input, or an alternative for users who can't fill a structured pipeline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.