List all CAPTCHA configurations for a project.
Args: project_key: Project key (tenant ID). Uses global tenant_id if not provided
Returns: JSON string with list of CAPTCHA configurations
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_key | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that project_key uses the global tenant_id when not provided and that it returns a JSON string, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or has no side effects, though 'List' implies this.
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 and well-structured with sections for Args and Returns. It contains no redundant information, and every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, parameters, and return value.
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 list operation with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and return format. It lacks explicit usage guidance and read-only confirmation, but given the tool's simplicity, it is reasonably 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?
The schema only has a default for project_key with no description (0% coverage). The description adds meaning by identifying it as a project key (tenant ID) and explaining the fallback to global tenant_id, which is beyond schema information.
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 begins with 'List all CAPTCHA configurations for a project,' which clearly states the verb (list), resource (CAPTCHA configurations), and scope (project). This distinguishes it from siblings like save_captcha_config and update_captcha_status, which imply write operations.
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 provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparisons with alternatives. The 'List' verb implies read-only retrieval, but it does not mention save_captcha_config or update_captcha_status as alternatives for modification, leaving the decision to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The tools are organized into clear domains (auth, roles, schemas, translations, projects), and within each domain, tools have distinct purposes (e.g., get_schema vs list_schemas, save_captcha_config vs update_captcha_status). A few pairs like get_auth_status and get_authentication_config could cause minor confusion, but their descriptions clarify the difference.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case, using predictable verbs like get, list, create, update, set, enable, and configure. Even longer names like save_module_keys_with_translations adhere to the same convention, with no mixed casing or arbitrary styles.
With 36 tools, the server exceeds the typical well-scoped range for MCP servers. While the broad platform domain justifies some breadth, the sheer volume can overwhelm agents and suggests the toolset could be consolidated or split into smaller, focused servers.
The toolset provides decent coverage for creation, listing, and some updates across entities like permissions, roles, schemas, and translations. However, there are notable gaps: no delete operations for most resources, no role update, and no project update/delete, which leaves lifecycle management incomplete.
