Confirm message delivery with an idempotent acknowledgement to prevent duplicate processing and satisfy required-delivery guarantees.
Record an idempotent required-delivery acknowledgement.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message_id | Yes | ||
| binding_token | No | Opaque token returned by this agent's join_session or plan_session. Required for reliable identity when logical agents share an MCP connection. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses idempotency, a meaningful behavioral trait, but with no annotations it carries the full burden. It omits other behavioral aspects like side effects, authentication needs, or what the acknowledgement actually does, leaving significant gaps.
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, terse sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the key trait (idempotent) and the action. However, the extreme brevity edges toward under-specification, so it is concise but not overly structured.
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 only 2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a large sibling set, the description is too sparse to let an agent determine proper usage. It lacks any context about the required-delivery mechanism or when the acknowledgement is needed.
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 description coverage is 50% (binding_token is described, message_id is not). The tool description adds no parameter explanation, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented message_id and adds no value beyond the schema.
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 clear action ('Record an idempotent required-delivery acknowledgement'), specifying a verb and resource. The qualifier 'required-delivery' gives it specificity beyond generic ack tools, but it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like ack_messages.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ack_messages or ack_thread. The description lacks any context about delivery requirements, prerequisites, or conditions that would select this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.