Save vendor billing portal URLs and access status to guide automated retrieval without storing secrets.
Store a vendor billing portal location and retrieval status. This registry guides the agent browser/connector; it does not log in itself. Never include secrets or session URLs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| notes | No | ||
| status | Yes | ||
| portalUrl | Yes | ||
| accountLabel | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint false) and destructiveHint true, so the description adds value by stating it does not log in itself and by warning against including secrets or session URLs. This provides important security context 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?
The description is two sentences, with the core purpose stated upfront and the security note following. No waste, and the key constraint is front-loaded.
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 mutation tool with no output schema and no parameter details in the description, it is incomplete. It provides the purpose and a security constraint, but omits parameter semantics, usage conditions, and expected side effects, leaving gaps for an agent.
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?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should compensate by explaining parameters. It only references 'portal location' and 'retrieval status' which loosely map to portalUrl and status, but it does not describe any of the six parameters, leaving the agent to infer meaning from the schema alone.
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 the verb 'Store' and the resource 'vendor billing portal location and retrieval status', which is specific. It also clarifies the tool's role in guiding the agent browser/connector, distinguishing it from tools that might perform login. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools beyond this context.
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 implies usage by noting it guides the browser/connector and does not log in, but it lacks explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. No mention of prerequisites or conditions for using this tool over siblings like billy_prepare or billy_execute.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.