Issue revocable, role-scoped campaign memberships by specifying role, capabilities, and expiration.
Issue a revocable, role-scoped campaign membership capability.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| role | No | member | |
| agent_id | Yes | ||
| expires_at | No | ||
| campaign_id | Yes | ||
| capabilities | No | ||
| 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?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the membership is revocable and role-scoped, but says nothing about required preconditions (e.g., existing campaign, identity binding token), side effects (e.g., creation of a record, notification), or error conditions. The binding_token field is not described in the main description, only in the schema.
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 focused sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes: 'revocable' and 'role-scoped' are meaningful constraints, and the verb is precise.
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?
The tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description addresses none of the operational details an agent must know to call it correctly. There is no mention of what the response is, what the parameters require, or what side effects result. The one-liner is insufficient for a tool of this complexity.
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 only 17% (only binding_token is described). The phrase 'role-scoped' gives partial meaning to the role parameter, but other parameters — campaign_id, agent_id, expires_at, capabilities, and binding_token — have no semantic explanation in the description. The description does not compensate for the low schema coverage.
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 verb ('Issue') and resource ('campaign membership capability'), with constraint qualifiers 'revocable' and 'role-scoped' that help differentiate it from revoke_member or join_campaign. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, and 'capability' is slightly abstract, leaving a small gap.
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 gives no guidance on when to use invite_member versus alternatives such as join_campaign or create_campaign. The qualifier 'revocable' implies a counterpart, but there is no explicit mention of when an agent should choose this tool over others, no prerequisites, and no exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.