Save local sender contact and preference details (name, email, phone, insurance, city, language) for therapy enquiries. Remove fields by setting them to null.
Save local sender_name, sender_email, sender_phone, insurance, city, preferred_language. null removes a field.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral value beyond that by disclosing that the store is 'local' and that passing null removes a field, which is non-obvious mutation semantics.
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?
Two tight sentences with the field inventory and the null convention front-loaded; nothing is padded. Slightly telegraphic wording ('local') leaves minor ambiguity.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and null-removal is covered. However, for a mutation tool it omits whether omitted fields are left unchanged (merge vs replace), persistence scope, and any permission requirements.
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 coverage is 0% and the schema is an opaque additionalProperties map, so the description carries the full burden. It names the allowed keys and explains the null-means-remove convention, substantially compensating for the gap, though value formats/types are still unspecified.
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?
States a specific verb (save) plus the resource (local preferences) and enumerates the concrete fields, so an agent knows exactly what gets written. It is distinguishable from get_preferences by the read/write verb, though it never names that counterpart.
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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of get_preferences as the read alternative or update_saved_therapist/update_appointment as siblings that also mutate. The agent must infer the invocation context entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.