AX Audit MCP Server

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses server-side persistence, that a report_id is returned and reusable without re-scanning, that no authentication is required, and even explains the deliberate omission of a pinned check count. These are exactly the operational facts an agent needs.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and scope, with useful details following. The single long sentence with a nested parenthetical is dense but every clause earns its place; slightly more structure would aid scanning.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what it does, what comes back (report_id), persistence behavior, and auth requirements. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke 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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds conceptual context (the industry drives a benchmark percentile) but no syntax or default details beyond what the schema provides, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Run the full AX Audit on a URL") and immediately positions it relative to the sibling by saying it performs the same AR-* checks as scan_site plus simulation and benchmark. An agent can distinguish the two tools without inspecting schemas.

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 makes clear this is a superset of scan_site (same checks plus simulation and benchmark), which strongly implies when to pick it. However, it never explicitly says when to use scan_site instead (e.g., cost/speed tradeoff), leaving the routing condition implicit rather than stated.

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 useful behavior: no authentication is required, scans public URL readiness, returns a score, grade, and per-check breakdown, and the check count may change over time. It does not mention rate limits, timeouts, or explicitly confirm read-only behavior, but the scan semantics are otherwise well conveyed.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then explains output and the dynamic check count. The long parenthetical checklist is useful but somewhat overstuffed, keeping it short of a perfect score.

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 scanner with no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it explains the return shape, that no auth is needed, and that check coverage evolves. It omits sibling differentiation and any operational limits, but those are secondary for this simple tool.

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?

There is a single URL parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents its meaning. The description only says the audit runs on a URL, not adding format or validation details 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?

States a specific verb and resource: run an AX Audit on a URL, with scope covering AI-agent readiness checks and return values. It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling run_full_audit.

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 explicit guidance on when to use scan_site versus run_full_audit, nor any when-not conditions. The context implies this is a URL readiness scan, but the agent is left to infer the choice between siblings.

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