Link or create an external MCP tool in the tenant catalog idempotently. Avoids duplicate entries and ensures the tool is ready for YAAIF platform integrations.
Idempotently link/create an external MCP tool in the tenant catalog.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| env | No | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| enabled | No | ||
| headers | No | ||
| spec_id | No | ||
| endpoint | Yes | ||
| slot_key | No | ||
| server_id | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| transport_type | No | ||
| timeout_seconds | No | ||
| remote_tool_name | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Idempotently' is a meaningful behavioral trait and 'external MCP tool in tenant catalog' adds useful context. However, it does not disclose side effects, permissions, or what happens to existing links.
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?
The description is a single sentence with no filler, and it front-loads the key idempotency behavior. It is concise, though it achieves brevity by omitting useful operational detail.
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 tool with 12 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a one-sentence description is insufficient. It does not cover return values, parameter semantics, or the operational context needed to invoke the tool correctly.
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 adds no parameter-level meaning. With 12 parameters, including nested objects like env and headers, the agent has no guidance on what values to supply or how parameters relate to the linking/creation operation.
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 uses a specific verb ('link/create') and identifies the resource ('external MCP tool in the tenant catalog'), making the core action clear. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from related MCP tools like yaaif_mcp_deployment_register or yaaif_mcp_scaffold, so it stops short of a 5.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor on prerequisites or when 'link' vs 'create' applies. The idempotency hint implies safe re-invocation but does not help the agent choose this over sibling MCP tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.