Mags Tack Website MCP

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

Annotations already cover the safe, read-only, idempotent nature of the tool. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the output can be Markdown or stripped text, and content is truncated at 40,000 characters. This helps the agent set expectations about size and format.

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 concise, information-dense sentence. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and every element—domain, format options, and character cap—contributes directly to correct invocation. No filler or redundancy.

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-only tool, the description covers the supported domain, output formats, and length limit. Annotations handle safety semantics. Minor gaps include the absence of a statement about what happens when a page exceeds the 40,000-character limit or how format is determined, but these are not critical for correct tool selection.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter's meaning. It does clarify that the url parameter refers to a specific page on the magstackonline.com domain and that output has a character limit. However, it does not explain how the output format (Markdown vs stripped text) is selected or whether the url must be a full absolute path, leaving some burden on the agent.

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 starts with a specific verb ('Read') and a precise resource ('one https://magstackonline.com page'), then adds output formats and a length limit. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools search_pages and site_info without ambiguity.

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 intended use case is implied: pass a URL to fetch page content from the magstackonline.com site. However, it does not explicitly explain when to choose this tool over search_pages or site_info, or mention any exclusions such as 'use search_pages if the URL is unknown.'

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 cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive), so the description adds the valuable behavioral context that this is a sitemap-based search returning scored URLs. This is useful beyond the annotations, though it does not disclose details like ordering or result-size semantics.

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 with no filler: the action, scope, search method, and return value are all present and front-loaded. Every sentence 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 simple search tool with rich annotations, the description covers the domain, input semantics, and output shape well enough for an agent to call it correctly. Minor omissions like how results are ranked and the behavior of the limit parameter are not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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 clarifies that 'query' means words in the URL path, but it says nothing about the 'limit' parameter or how the match score behaves. The meaning of limit is left entirely to schema defaults and name inference.

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 ('Find'), a concrete resource (pages on magstackonline.com), and the search mechanism (words in URL path via sitemap search). It also states the return payload (URLs with a match score), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools read_page and site_info.

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 when to use the tool: when an agent wants to locate pages by URL path tokens rather than reading a page or getting site info. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, leaving routing mostly 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, which cover the safety profile. The description adds the specific behavior of returning links to site documents, which is useful but not deeply detailed. It does not mention what the actual output format is (e.g., a list of URLs, HTML, etc.) or whether there are any rate limits, but with annotations covering safety, this is acceptable.

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, compact sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose and then enumerates the types of links provided. It is concise and to the point, though the phrasing 'what Mags Tack is' is a bit informal.

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?

Given that the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and its annotations already cover safety and idempotency, the description is complete enough for an agent to know what to expect: a collection of links to site resources. It does not describe the output format in detail, but for a zero-parameter discovery tool, this is not a major 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 has 0 parameters, and the schema is empty, so the description carries no burden to explain parameters. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate since there is nothing to compensate for.

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 that the tool provides information about the site (Mags Tack / magstackonline.com) and lists the types of documents it links to (sitemap, docs, contact, discovery documents). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tools (read_page and search_pages) by focusing on top-level site metadata, not page content or search.

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 that this tool is for getting an overview of the site, such as when an agent needs to understand the site's structure or find links to documentation. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus 'search_pages' or 'read_page', nor does it mention any alternatives or exclusions.

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