@briefgate/mcp

Add items to an intake

add_items

Add new requested items to an already-sent intake, notifying the client while preserving existing submissions. Returns the updated intake object.

Instructions

Add new items to an already-sent intake — for example, when you realise mid-project that you also need a favicon, social media assets, or additional credentials.

The client is notified about the new items. Existing items and their submitted values are not affected. Returns the updated intake object.

Items must follow the same key/type/label rules as define_intake (snake_case keys, type-specific constraints).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`items`	Yes	New items to add. Same schema as define_intake items.
`intake_id`	Yes	Intake ID returned by define_intake.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`items`	No
`status`	No
`folder_id`	No
`follow_up`	No	How to learn this intake is done — present unless a webhook already covers it. Mirrors FollowUpAdvice in client.ts.
`intake_id`	No
`portal_url`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.10.5Sep 18, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "folder_id": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "follow_up": {
+      "description": "How to learn this intake is done — present unless a webhook already covers it. Mirrors FollowUpAdvice in client.ts.",
+      "properties": {
+        "reason": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "recommended": {
+          "enum": [
+            "webhook",
+            "schedule"
+          ],
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "schedule": {
+          "properties": {
+            "check_with": {
+              "type": "string"
+            },
+            "every_hours": {
+              "type": "number"
+            },
+            "until": {
+              "type": "string"
+            }
+          },
+          "type": "object"
+        },
+        "webhook": {
+          "properties": {
+            "active_endpoints": {
+              "type": "number"
+            },
+            "events": {
+              "items": {
+                "type": "string"
+              },
+              "type": "array"
+            },
+            "register_with": {
+              "type": "string"
+            }
+          },
+          "type": "object"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "intake_id": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "items": {
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "key": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "status": {
+            "enum": [
+              "pending",
+              "submitted",
+              "needs_revision",
+              "approved"
+            ],
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "portal_url": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "enum": [
+        "draft",
+        "sent",
+        "in_progress",
+        "completed",
+        "archived"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedv0.9.0Sep 16, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / items / items / properties / type / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "text",
-  "longtext",
-  "file",
-  "file_list",
-  "image",
-  "color_list",
-  "select",
-  "boolean",
-  "url",
-  "secret",
-  "structured"
-]New value: +[
+  "text",
+  "longtext",
+  "file",
+  "file_list",
+  "image",
+  "color_list",
+  "select",
+  "multiselect",
+  "boolean",
+  "url",
+  "secret",
+  "structured"
+]

First observedv0.2.1Aug 31, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation), destructiveHint=false (not destructive), and idempotentHint=false. The description adds important behavioral details: the client is notified, existing items are untouched, and returns the updated intake. It doesn't mention potential side effects like rate limits, but the client notification is a key behavioral trait not captured in annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three short paragraphs: one for purpose with examples, one for behavioral notes, and one for validation rules. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value without unnecessary fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with 2 parameters and an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It specifies the items schema references another tool, mentions notification and non-impact on existing items, and returns the updated intake. The only minor gap is not detailing validation failure behavior (e.g., partial additions), but the output schema and schema coverage mitigate this.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the parameters and their properties. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond referencing 'same rules as define_intake' and the snake_case key requirement, but since the schema covers it, a baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('Add') and resource ('items to an intake'), and specifies the exact use case: adding items after an intake has been sent, with examples. It distinguishes itself from siblings like update_intake and define_intake by focusing on post-send additions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says when to use this tool: when you need to add items to an already-sent intake, and gives concrete examples. It also implicitly differentiates from define_intake (for initial definition) and update_item (for modifying existing items) by stating existing items are not affected.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server