toolpin

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns observed data, includes a catalog-wide drift rate for baseline comparison, and implies a read-only observation operation. It does not explicitly state that it performs no mutation or that it may fail for unknown server names, but the read-only nature is strongly implied by the content described.

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 two sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and packs the response contents into a compact list. Every clause adds information: endpoint reachability, timestamps, repository activity, hash, change count, and the drift-rate baseline. No filler or repetition.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the key return fields and even adds the drift-rate baseline context. It lacks an explicit statement of what happens when the server name is not found or whether the tool requires prior registration, but the overall picture is sufficient for an agent to decide to call it.

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 explains what the tool returns but does not elaborate on the 'name' parameter beyond the schema's title 'Name' — for example, whether it is a display name, a slug, or a server ID. The description's focus on the response means the single parameter's semantics are only minimally clarified.

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 ('get') and resource ('one MCP server') and enumerates the exact data returned: endpoint reachability, last-checked/last-verified timestamps, repository activity, tool-definition hash, and 90-day change count. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on a single server's observed state rather than changes, tools, 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 clearly implies this is for retrieving a consolidated status snapshot of one server, and the sibling list (get_server_changes, get_server_tools, get_spec_status, search_servers, watch_server) provides implicit alternatives. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over those siblings, such as 'use get_server_changes for a detailed change log' or 'use search_servers when you don't know the exact name.'

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. It transparently describes the response content (changes, hashes, drift rate) but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, error behavior, or potential rate limits. While the content is well-specified, the lack of an explicit safety profile or failure mode information is a gap.

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 concise, using two sentences that each serve a distinct purpose: the first establishes the core function and scope, the second elaborates on the change format and the comparative drift rate. It is well-structured and front-loaded, with no redundant or vague wording.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main output type but leaves parameter semantics unclear, especially the 'days' parameter. It also does not address error conditions (e.g., unknown server name) or the exact response structure beyond the mention of hashes. Given the lack of annotations, it is moderately complete but has notable 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 mentions 'for one MCP server', which hints that 'name' identifies the server, but it does not explain the 'days' parameter at all—its meaning, default, or valid range are omitted. The time-window semantics are only vaguely implied by the notion of 'changes recorded'.

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 retrieves changes recorded for one MCP server, specifically tool definition changes and endpoint status changes. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_server_tools (which lists current tools) and search_servers by focusing on change history, and it details what each change contains (tools moved, fields differed, hashes).

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 tool is for viewing change history, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like watch_server (real-time monitoring) or get_server_tools (current state). No when-not-to-use guidance or alternative references are provided, leaving the agent to infer applicability from the content.

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 burden. It discloses that data comes from when Toolpin last read them, implying cached/possibly stale information, and that it works 'without connecting to it', indicating a non-invasive read. This offers meaningful behavioral context beyond the tool name.

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 two sentences with no filler. The most important fact (what the tool returns) is front-loaded, followed by concrete use cases. Every element 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 one-parameter read tool, the description covers purpose, usage scenarios, and data-recency behavior. However, it omits explicit explanation of the 'name' parameter and any details about error conditions or the meaning of the hash for practical verification. It is adequate but leaves minor gaps in a fully self-contained definition.

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% and the schema only provides 'name' with no description. The tool description refers to 'one MCP server' but never explicitly states that the required 'name' parameter is the server name or what format is expected. The description does very little to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 verb and resource: it returns the tool definitions an MCP server advertised, with SHA-256 hashes. It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing offline, read-only access to previously advertised definitions rather than live server interaction or change tracking.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool: to see a server's tool claims without connecting, or to compare a pinned hash. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the provided use cases are specific enough to guide selection.

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 of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the tool reports a point-in-time snapshot without modifying anything, but it does not state whether the data is live, cached, or how frequently it updates. The read-only nature is implicit from 'get_' and the informational wording, but not explicitly confirmed.

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 compact at two sentences and front-loads the core resource and purpose. The phrase 'which of its proposals Toolpin checks for' is slightly awkward, but every part of the description contributes useful information and there is no padding.

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 status tool, the description provides sufficient context on what the agent will learn: current revision, proposal checks, and migration level. There is no output schema, so the exact return shape is not specified, but the low complexity makes this a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

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 zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this is a strong score; no parameter documentation is needed.

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 identifies the resource as the MCP specification revision and specifies the three distinct pieces of information returned: current revision, proposals Toolpin checks, and migration progress. This differentiates it from the server-focused siblings (get_server, get_server_tools, etc.) which operate at a different scope.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: to learn the current revision and judge whether being on an older revision is unusual. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the standalone status purpose is clear enough that an agent would not confuse it with 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently notes that results include whether the server answered the last probe and that the search targets the public registry, giving the agent useful behavioral context beyond the raw operation.

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 three concise sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, return values are stated, and the practical use case is provided without 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?

The description is largely complete for a simple search tool: it explains the search space, the return fields, and how to use the results. The main gap is the lack of explanation for the limit parameter, but the schema's default value and type make it reasonably self-explanatory.

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 for the lack of parameter documentation. It does explain that the query matches by name or title, but it says nothing about the limit parameter. Since only one of two parameters is meaningfully described, this is a partial compensation at best.

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 finds MCP servers in the public registry by name or title, which is a specific verb and resource. It also specifies what is returned—canonical name, description, and probe status—making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinguishable from sibling tools like get_server.

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 explicitly explains when to use the tool: to turn a rough idea of a server into the exact name needed by other tools. It does not name alternatives or provide explicit exclusions, but the use case is clear and actionable.

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 discloses it requires an API key and handles plan-limit errors gracefully. It also states the effect (emails on changes/stops). However, it doesn't mention whether this creates a persistent watch, is idempotent, or is reversible. Some behavioral context is provided but not comprehensive.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then requirements and edge-case behavior. No wasted words.

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 single-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers purpose, a requirement, and one error behavior. It lacks return-value information and any detail on how the name is validated, but the tool is simple. It's adequate but not rich.

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%, and the description does not explicitly explain the 'name' parameter. It implies it identifies the server to monitor but never directly states that. The API key requirement is mentioned but is not a parameter. The description fails to fully compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 ('Start monitoring') and resource ('MCP server on the caller's Toolpin account'), and distinguishes from sibling get/search tools by describing a mutating action with a distinct outcome (email notifications).

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 tool versus the siblings (get_server, get_server_changes, etc.). The description implies a monitoring use case but doesn't explicitly contrast it with alternatives or state when not to use it.

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