pickup_requestAssign a service request to the authenticated technician by passing its request ID, so the current user takes ownership for further handling.
Assign to the authenticated technician.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| request_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one useful behavioral fact — the assignee is the authenticated user, not an arbitrary target — but says nothing about permissions, idempotency, failure if the request is already assigned, or side effects.
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 short sentence with no filler, and the key fact (assignment target) is front-loaded. It is efficient, though brevity here shades into under-specification rather than crispness.
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 annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, one sentence is not enough. An agent lacks the state-change semantics, preconditions, and parameter meaning needed to invoke it confidently.
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 0% and the description never mentions request_id or its accepted forms (integer or numeric string). The single parameter is left entirely to the raw schema, so the description adds no semantic value.
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 conveys a mutation on a request (assigning it), and 'the authenticated technician' hints that this is a self-assignment rather than an arbitrary assignment. However, it never names or contrasts with the obvious sibling assign_request, so an agent cannot tell the two apart without inspecting schemas.
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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance is given. With assign_request, update_request, and close_request among the siblings, the absence of any routing guidance is a real gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.