BL Sign Website MCP

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add context beyond those. It does by restricting the URL to a specific domain, naming the output formats, and stating the 40,000-character cap. It does not specify what happens over the limit, but annotations lower the bar for safety-related behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, the resource scope, the output form, and the size limit, with every clause earning 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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential details: what to pass, what domain is allowed, what format comes back, and the result size limit. It is slightly incomplete about how the Markdown vs stripped-text mode is chosen and about truncation behavior, but overall it gives enough to call 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?

The schema only says 'url' is a string with format 'uri', which is minimal. The description adds important meaning by requiring the URL to be an https://sign.blacklabeltec.com page, effectively constraining the single parameter beyond the schema. It does not fully explain URL edge cases, but it compensates reasonably for the 0% schema coverage.

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 clearly states a specific action—reading one web page—along with the exact domain, output format, and character limit. It is easy to distinguish from search_pages and site_info because it says 'one page' and describes page-content retrieval rather than searching or site-level metadata.

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?

The description gives no explicit guidance about when to choose read_page over search_pages or site_info. It does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or when not to use this tool, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and description.

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 carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, openWorldHint), lowering the bar. The description adds return-format context ('Returns URLs with a match score') and the search mechanism, but omits match-score semantics, sort order, and empty-result behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences, zero filler. The action and scope are front-loaded in sentence one, and the return format is stated succinctly in sentence two. Every word 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly explains return values (URLs + match score), which is good. But for a search tool, the absence of match-score interpretation, result ordering, and no-results behavior leaves an agent guessing about how to use results. Adequate, with identifiable gaps.

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. It does explain 'query' as a URL-path word search, adding real meaning. However, 'limit' is left completely unexplained; it is only partially rescued by the schema's min/max/default constraints, which hint at result-count limiting but not at truncation or pagination behavior.

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 ('Find'), a precise resource ('pages on sign.blacklabeltec.com'), and a distinctive method ('by words in their URL path (sitemap search)'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings read_page and site_info — an agent can tell it searches URLs rather than reading content or fetching site metadata.

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?

The description implies the usage context — search by URL path words when you don't have an exact URL — but never explicitly contrasts it with read_page or site_info. No exclusions or 'use X instead when...' guidance is given, leaving routing between siblings to inference.

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?

The annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, which covers the safety profile. The description adds that the tool returns links to sitemap, docs, contact, and discovery documents, which is useful behavioral context about the output contents. However, it does not describe the response format or any other behavior beyond providing these links, so it offers modest additional value.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('What BL Sign is') and immediately follows with the key contents (links to sitemap, docs, contact, discovery documents). Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or extraneous 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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with annotations already covering safety and idempotence, the description is sufficient. It explains what the tool returns (an explanation and links), and there is no output schema to elaborate on. It does not mention that it requires no input, but the empty schema makes that clear. Overall, it is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and no additional parameter semantics are needed. The baseline of 4 is appropriate because with no parameters to describe, the description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps. The description correctly focuses on the tool's purpose rather than inputs.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to explain what BL Sign is and provide links to its sitemap, docs, contact, and discovery documents. This distinguishes it from siblings read_page and search_pages, which operate on individual pages or search within the site, making it easy for an agent to understand when to select this tool.

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?

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the alternatives. While the phrase 'What BL Sign is' implies an informational/overview use case, there is no mention of read_page or search_pages, nor any guidance about when site-level information is more appropriate than page-level reading or searching. Usage context is left to inference.

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