Extend a VRAM claim's expiry before it lapses by providing the claim ID and optional TTL in seconds.
Extend an existing claim's expiry before it lapses.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| claim_id | Yes | ||
| ttl_seconds | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| model | Yes | ||
| detail | Yes | ||
| reason | Yes | ||
| outcome | Yes | ||
| summary | Yes | ||
| claim_id | Yes | ||
| expires_at | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "claim_id": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "title": "Claim Id"
+ },
+ "detail": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "title": "Detail"
+ },
+ "expires_at": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "title": "Expires At"
+ },
+ "model": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "title": "Model"
+ },
+ "ok": {
+ "title": "Ok",
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "outcome": {
+ "enum": [
+ "succeeded",
+ "refused",
+ "failed",
+ "unknown"
+ ],
+ "title": "Outcome",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "reason": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "title": "Reason"
+ },
+ "summary": {
+ "title": "Summary",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "ok",
+ "outcome",
+ "model",
+ "reason",
+ "detail",
+ "summary",
+ "claim_id",
+ "expires_at"
+ ],
+ "title": "RenewResult",
+ "type": "object"
+}v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the meaningful precondition that renewal must happen before expiry, but says nothing about what happens if the claim is already lapsed, whether ttl_seconds replaces or adds to remaining time, or any permission requirements.
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 the action and precondition front-loaded and zero filler. Appropriately sized for a two-parameter tool.
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 output schema relieves the description of explaining return values, but for a mutation with no annotations and 0% schema coverage the definition leaves key behavior undefined: failure mode on lapsed or nonexistent claims and the semantics of the optional ttl_seconds.
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%, so the description must compensate and largely fails to. "existing claim" loosely maps to claim_id and "expiry" to ttl_seconds, but there is no explanation of the ttl_seconds default of null, units, or what a null value means.
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 ("Extend") and resource ("an existing claim's expiry"), which is clear enough to separate it from sibling writers like claim, reserve, and release. It lacks any explicit contrast with those siblings, so the agent must infer the distinction from names alone.
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?
"before it lapses" implies the correct timing and an implicit precondition, giving some usage context. It does not name alternatives (e.g., what to do once a claim has already lapsed) or state exclusions, so guidance remains implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.