DMCA.com Cases MCP

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the auth path ('Uses the session/token DMCA API token') and the HTTP verb POST, which signals mutation. It says nothing about what is created, whether calls are idempotent, or what a caller needs beyond the token, so the behavioral picture is only partial.

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 short clauses, front-loaded with the action, with no padding or repetition. The literal endpoint URL is mildly redundant since it does not aid selection, but the overall footprint is tight.

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 schema fully documents all six parameters, so the agent can invoke the tool, but with three closely named case-creation siblings and no output schema, the description should clarify which case type this produces and roughly what it returns. That sibling-disambiguation gap keeps this merely adequate.

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%, so every parameter including token, subject, description, and the optional URL/IP fields is already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the token/session fallback behavior but adds no syntax or format detail beyond baseline.

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 ('create managed takedown case'), which is more precise than the bare name createCase. The adjective 'managed' implicitly distinguishes it from createDIYCase and createComplianceCase, though it never states that contrast explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundaries.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of the sibling alternatives (createDIYCase, createComplianceCase) or the conditions that select this one. The agent is left to guess whether a managed case is the right choice for a given takedown scenario.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose auth behavior ('Uses the session/`token` DMCA API token') and a precondition on siteId. It still omits what the call actually produces (e.g. a new case id), any side effects on existing cases, and error conditions for a feature-disabled site.

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?

It is three short fragments with no padding, and the endpoint and purpose are front-loaded. The telegraphic style reads as under-written rather than wasteful, so it is efficient but not polished prose.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, auth, and one precondition, but says nothing about the return value (such as a case id) or failure modes. It is minimally adequate rather than complete.

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%, so all ten parameters are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description only re-adds the siteId precondition, adding no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('create compliance case') plus the concrete HTTP endpoint, and the 'compliance' qualifier implicitly separates it from the sibling createCase/createDIYCase and pairs with listComplianceCases. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with those siblings, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

It gives a real prerequisite ('site owner must have feature enabled') and notes the token may come from the session, which is useful usage context. However, it never states when to choose this tool over createCase or createDIYCase, leaving the sibling routing 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but only notes that it uses a session/token for authentication. It does not describe side effects, required permissions beyond the token, what happens on success, or whether the operation is reversible or destructive.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a single sentence with the HTTP endpoint, and is front-loaded with the core action. There is no superfluous content.

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 creation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain return behavior, error handling, or any operational context that an agent would need to invoke the tool confidently.

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%, so all parameters are fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, which is consistent with a baseline score of 3.

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 ('create') and resource ('DIY case'), making the tool's basic function clear. However, it does not differentiate this from sibling tools like createCase or createComplianceCase, and does not explain what a 'DIY case' entails relative to other case types.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as createCase, createComplianceCase, or other case creation tools. There are no prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions mentioned.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. The HTTP 'GET' verb does imply a read-only, idempotent operation, which is genuine value, but nothing is said about authentication needs, error behavior (e.g., invalid/missing id), rate limits, or what is returned.

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 compact sentence with the core action front-loaded. The URL is partly redundant with the name but does convey the HTTP method and endpoint, so it is not pure waste.

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 single-entity read tool with a fully documented schema, the essentials are present, but with no output schema and no annotations the description should have covered the auth requirement and the shape/behavior of the response.

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%, so both 'id' and 'token' are already documented in the schema. The description's '?id=' adds no syntax, format, or meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('fetch') and resource ('one case by id'), which contrasts implicitly with the sibling list tools (listCases, listComplianceCases). It does not name or route to any sibling explicitly, 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as listCases or getSiteReport. The only hint of usage context ('Case ID returned by listCases') lives in the schema, not the 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the auth requirement (session/token from login), but says nothing about read-only semantics, rate limits, failure modes, or what the report returns — all of which matter for a tool with 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?

Very short and front-loaded: the endpoint, the resource, and the auth note. No waste, though the trailing fragment about the token is slightly redundant with the schema.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description orients the agent but never hints at the return payload, so an agent cannot anticipate the report's shape or size. Adequate but with a clear 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (token, domain) are already documented in the schema, including that token is optional when the session has one. The description adds only the upstream path form /getSiteReport/{domain}, which is marginal. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (site report for a fully qualified domain name), including the upstream path template. It is clearly distinguishable from the case-management siblings, though it never says what the report actually contains.

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 on when to use this versus the case tools or any other alternative, and no preconditions beyond the token mention. The agent must infer that this is a domain-reputation lookup rather than a case operation.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the GET method, which implies a safe read-only operation, but it omits auth requirements, rate limits, and whether all managed cases are returned without filtering.

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 one compact sentence plus an endpoint, with the core purpose front-loaded and no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple list 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 schema covers both parameters well and no output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values. However, it leaves gaps around sibling routing and authentication context, which are important for correct invocation among several list/create case tools.

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 both the page and token parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description mentions the optional page but adds no syntax or meaning beyond the schema, making 3 the appropriate baseline.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'list managed takedown cases,' with the API endpoint included. It does not explain how 'managed' differs from sibling tools like listComplianceCases or listDIYCases, so sibling differentiation is weak.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no alternatives named, and no prerequisites described. The only usage hint is the fragment 'Optional page,' which does not tell an agent when this tool is preferable to listComplianceCases or listDIYCases.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses almost nothing: no auth requirements (the token param is unexplained), no pagination limits or total-count behavior, no return shape, and no rate-limit or error semantics. The GET verb implies a read-only operation, which is the only behavioral signal present.

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 short and front-loaded, but the raw URL is low-value for an agent that already has the tool name, and the terseness comes at the cost of missing context rather than being genuinely efficient.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description must explain auth, pagination, and what distinguishes a compliance case from other case types, and it does none of these. Two parameters are present and only one is even mentioned.

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%, so both 'page' and 'token' are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes 'Optional page' and adds nothing about token acquisition, page-size behavior, or ordering, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a clear verb+resource ('list compliance cases') and even names the underlying endpoint, so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not, however, distinguish this from the closely named siblings listCases and listDIYCases, leaving the 'compliance' scope ambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus listCases, listDIYCases, or getCaseById, and no prerequisites or exclusions. 'Optional page' restates the schema rather than offering usage context.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the GET/read nature and the edge case that an empty account returns an empty list, but says nothing about authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether additional pages exist beyond the requested page.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the verb and resource appear first and the behavioral note follows. The raw URL is arguably redundant but acceptable for a REST-wrapper 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?

For a simple read-only list tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, this is largely adequate. The pagination ceiling of 50 per page lives in the schema, but the description omits auth/pagination-continuation context that an agent would still need.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (page, token) are already documented in the schema. The description only restates 'Optional page' and adds no syntax or default value beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 clear verb+resource ('list DIY cases') and even names the underlying endpoint, so the agent knows it retrieves DIY case records. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling listCases or listComplianceCases beyond the word 'DIY' in the name/description.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The agent gets no hint about when to prefer listDIYCases over listCases, listComplianceCases, or getCaseById; the only usage signal is 'Optional page' for pagination.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that no Token header is required here, that the token is auto-reused for the session, and that the password is never logged. It omits error/rate-limit behavior and token expiry, keeping it short of a 5.

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 leads with the endpoint and flows into return and session-reuse behavior. It is front-loaded and waste-free, though the em-dash packing makes it slightly harder to scan than a two-sentence split would be.

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 2-param auth tool with no output schema, the description covers the endpoint, credentials, what is returned (the API token), how the token is subsequently used, and the no-log guarantee. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description only restates 'email/password' and adds the 'never logged' note, which is already echoed in the password field description. Baseline 3 for schema-driven parameter docs.

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?

Names a specific operation (login) plus the exact endpoint (POST https://api.dmca.com/login) and the credential mechanism (email/password, no Token header). It is trivially distinguishable from the case-management siblings, which all revolve around cases rather than authentication.

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?

Explains the operating context clearly: the returned token is reused automatically for the rest of the MCP session, or can be passed explicitly. That tells an agent it normally needs to authenticate once up front, though it does not spell out ordering/prerequisites with case tools or what to do on auth failure.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful traits: the HTTP method/endpoint, the fact that it is a mutation, the partial-update semantics for status/priority, and the session/token auth requirement. However, the partial-update note largely mirrors the schema's 'Left unchanged when omitted' text, and permission/error behavior is absent.

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 action front-loaded; the embedded endpoint URL is somewhat verbose but plausibly useful. Little waste overall.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the mutation and auth profile but says nothing about required fields, permissions, or failure modes. It is adequate but not complete.

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%, so the schema already documents all nine parameters and the baseline is 3. The description adds auth context (session token fallback) but no additional syntax or format guidance beyond that.

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 ('update managed takedown case'), which cleanly separates it from the create* and getCaseById siblings. It does not explicitly name or contrast those siblings, 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?

The description implies usage (updating an existing case) and adds a partial-update nuance, but never states when to use this over createCase or the other update-style siblings, nor any prerequisites beyond the token.

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