create_retrospective_processCreate a new retrospective process from provided details, copying steps from an existing process or starter template and setting matching criteria by severity, team, or incident type.
Creates a new retrospective process from provided data
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that—it does not explain what 'provided data' contains, what permissions are needed, or what happens on duplicate creation.
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?
It is a single short sentence with no redundant words, so it is concise and front-loaded. However, this is achieved through under-specification rather than useful compression—the sentence does not earn its place because it merely repeats the name.
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?
Given the nested schema, required copy_from parameter, and multiple matching-criteria options, the description is far too thin. It provides no guidance on required fields or what the tool returns, though an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. The input side is critically under-described.
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 single top-level parameter 'data' has no description in the schema or the tool description, and the stated schema description coverage is 0%. The phrase 'from provided data' gives no meaning about the required nested fields (e.g., name, copy_from, matching criteria). The description does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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 restates the tool name and title almost verbatim: 'Creates a new retrospective process from provided data.' It names a verb and resource, but 'from provided data' is filler that adds no discriminating information. It does not differentiate this create tool from the many sibling retrospective tools (get, list, update).
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites or required inputs such as copy_from, and no exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.