Validates an Audience create payload offline before submission and returns an immutable confirmation hash for verification.
Validate a closed Audience create payload offline and return its immutable confirmation hash.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| payload | Yes | ||
| operation | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description's own additions ('offline', 'immutable confirmation hash') largely restate what openWorldHint=false and the existing output schema already convey, so it adds only marginal new context.
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 dense sentence with the verb and outcome front-loaded and no filler; nothing to trim.
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 two-parameter, nested-payload validation step, the agent still lacks the allowed 'operation' values, the expected payload shape, and where the resulting hash is consumed downstream. The presence of an output schema excuses it from describing return values, but the input-side and workflow gaps are significant.
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% for both required parameters, and the nested 'payload' object is opaque with additionalProperties=true. The description says only 'Audience create payload' and says nothing about the 'operation' parameter or what keys the payload must contain, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 (validate) and resource (Audience create payload) plus the result (confirmation hash), so the agent knows this does not create anything. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings like audience_create_geo_circle, audience_reconcile_create, or audience_manage_prepare.
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?
'Validate ... offline' implies this is a pre-flight check before a create/reconcile step, which is usable guidance. But no explicit when-to-use, no statement of which create tool's payload this validates, and no mention of the alternative paths (audience_reconcile_create, audience_manage_prepare).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.