NoInfra MCP

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety and side-effect profile are covered by structured data. The description adds only that the catalog is 'public', implying no auth or user scoping; it does not mention catalog size, caching, or whether links are static.

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 front-loaded sentence naming the action and both return subjects, with no filler or restated title. Nothing can be trimmed without losing information.

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 no-arg, read-only, idempotent catalog fetch with annotations covering behavior, the description tells the agent what comes back (catalog plus product links). With no output schema, it could go slightly further on response shape (e.g., list vs. object, whether links are embedded), which is the only gap.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is fully closed (additionalProperties: false), so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies since no parameter interpretation is required.

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 (return) and resource (public NoInfra hosted-agent catalog and product links), so the agent knows exactly what this call yields. It does not explicitly contrast with the closest sibling, noinfra.services.list, which could plausibly return overlapping content.

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?

Usage is only implied: the word 'public' suggests no-auth discovery, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over noinfra.recommend_agent or noinfra.services.list. For a zero-parameter read tool the intent is inferable, but no explicit trigger or exclusion is given.

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

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds useful context about authorization requirements and retry semantics, though it does not detail side effects or response contents.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then prerequisite, then retry rule. No redundant text; each sentence adds operational information.

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 simple one-parameter provisioning tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, authorization, and retry behavior. It leaves some uncertainty about what exactly is returned or whether an existing inbox may be reused, but is largely sufficient.

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?

The only parameter is idempotency_key, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description explains its retry role ('Reuse the same idempotency key when retrying'), but does not specify format, uniqueness scope, or how to generate one.

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 ('Get') and resource ('dedicated NoInfra email inbox') scoped to an agent running anywhere. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but those siblings are unrelated catalog/service tools, so the purpose remains clear.

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?

Gives a prerequisite ('Your NoInfra account owner must authorize access first') and retry guidance ('Reuse the same idempotency key when retrying'). It does not name alternatives or when-not conditions, but no close alternative appears among the sibling tools.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds essentially nothing beyond the title: it does not say whether the recommendation is deterministic, whether it draws on a catalog, or how many/which agents are suggested.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized, though the terseness borders on under-specification rather than economy.

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?

Complexity is low (one required string, no nesting) and annotations cover safety, so little is needed. However, there is no output schema and the description never indicates what a 'recommendation' returns — an agent name, a config blob, or a ranked list — which is the main open question before calling.

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 100% and the single parameter 'goal' is fully documented with type and length bounds. The description's 'described workflow' merely echoes that schema text rather than adding format hints or examples of a good goal string.

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 names a specific verb ('Recommend') and resource ('NoInfra hosted agent') plus the input it works from ('a described workflow'), so the purpose is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from siblings like noinfra.catalog.get or noinfra.services.list, which an agent could plausibly reach for when looking for an agent.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'for a described workflow' suggests this is the tool to call when the user has a goal but not a specific agent. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use, and no mention of alternatives such as the catalog or services list.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral nuance beyond that — results are scoped to the caller's entitlements — but says nothing about whether that filtering hides services entirely or flags them, and no return shape is given (no output schema).

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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and resource before the scoping qualifier. Every clause earns its place.

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 zero-argument, read-only enumeration tool with rich annotations, this is close to sufficient: the agent knows what it gets (a service list annotated by caller availability). The only gap is that with no output schema, the description could have sketched the returned fields (service name, availability flag) to help downstream reasoning.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly does not waste words inventing filter options that the schema forbids (additionalProperties: false).

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 and resource ('List NoInfra agent services') plus the scope of what is returned ('which are available to the current caller'). It contrasts implicitly with siblings like noinfra.catalog.get and noinfra.recommend_agent, but never names or disambiguates them explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the discovery tool to call before provisioning (noinfra.email.provision) or asking for a recommendation. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement or pointer to an alternative for a different question.

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