HVTracker MCP

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond 'Get... trust profile'. It does not disclose potential errors, permissions, or data freshness. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentence without unnecessary words. Efficiently communicates the tool's purpose. No structural improvements needed.

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 tool has one input parameter and an output schema exists. The description combined with annotations and schema provides basic context for a simple tool. It could mention what the trust profile includes, but the output schema presumably covers that, so completeness is 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 0%, so the description must compensate. The tool description implies the parameter is a name or repository identifier, adding some context. However, it lacks format, examples, or constraints. Baseline 3 is fair.

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 the HVTracker supply-chain trust profile for a specific agent or framework. It distinguishes from siblings like search_agents or get_agent_history by focusing on trust profile retrieval. However, it could more explicitly differentiate itself.

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 vs sibling tools. No mention of prerequisites or context where this tool is appropriate. The description only states what it does, not when or why to choose it.

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, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds value by detailing the output contents (trust scores, grades, runtime capabilities, verdict), which are not in annotations or 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?

Single sentence, no redundancy, directly conveys the tool's purpose and output. Efficiently uses space.

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?

Despite 0% schema parameter coverage, the description lists the main comparison dimensions. An output schema exists (not shown) but description mentions output fields, making it reasonably complete for a comparison tool with clear annotations.

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% (no parameter descriptions). The description only says 'two tracked AI agents' without specifying format or accepted identifiers for parameters 'a' and 'b'. Minimal guidance beyond the schema's type and title.

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 compares two AI agents, listing specific aspects (trust scores, grades, runtime capabilities, verdict). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_agent_trust (single agent) and get_leaderboard (ranking).

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 use when a side-by-side comparison of two agents is needed, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives. No guidance on prerequisites or excluded cases.

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 and idempotentHint. Description adds the 90-day time window and data fields (trust-score, grade, rank), but does not disclose further behavioral traits like rate limits or authentication 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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with agent and data scope, no wasted words. High signal-to-noise ratio.

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 output schema existence, the description covers return fields and time window. However, the input parameter is poorly explained, and no mention of pagination or error handling, leaving 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 has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the parameter name_or_repo or its expected format. The agent must infer from the parameter name, which is insufficient.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves history (trust-score, grade, rank) for a single agent over 90 days, using the verb 'get history'. It distinguishes from siblings like check_agent_trust (snapshot) and compare_agents (comparison).

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?

Description implies usage for historical trend analysis but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like check_agent_trust or compare_agents, nor provides prerequisites or exclusions.

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=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing safety. The description adds context about ranking metric (HVTrust score) and optional category filtering. However, it does not detail pagination, sorting direction, or data freshness, but these are less critical given the annotations.

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 sentence, front-loading the key information (resource, ranking, optional filter). No redundant or extraneous text. Maximally concise.

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 the presence of an output schema (which documents return values), the description is largely complete for a simple leaderboard tool. It covers the essential behavior. Minor improvement could be to mention the limit default, but it is not critical.

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 explain parameters. It explains the 'category' parameter as optional filtering. The 'limit' parameter is only implied by 'top', but no explicit mention of its default (10) or meaning. The description partially compensates for missing schema descriptions but could be more precise.

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 returns a ranked leaderboard of AI agents and MCP servers by HVTrust score, optionally filtered by category. The verb 'get' is implied by the title, and the resource and purpose are unambiguous. This distinguishes it from siblings like search_agents and check_agent_trust.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to avoid it, prerequisites, or how it compares to sibling tools. The context of sibling tool names is provided but not utilized in 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds only that it returns agent counts, providing minor extra context beyond annotations.

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?

Single sentence, 13 words, concise and front-loaded with action and context. Every word 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?

With 0 parameters, clear annotations, and an output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does and its typical use case, leaving no gaps for the agent.

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?

No parameters exist, so baseline is 4 per guidelines. The description does not need to add parameter details, and it aligns with the empty 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?

Verb 'list' clearly identifies the action, resource is 'categories', and the description adds 'with agent counts', distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_leaderboard or search_agents.

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?

Explicitly states the follow-up action ('so you can then pull a category's leaderboard'), guiding the agent to use it before get_leaderboard. Does not mention when not to use, but for a 0-param tool this is sufficient.

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 no destructiveness. The description adds context: it's a 'pre-connect trust check' that returns 'trust verdicts', implying read-only and non-destructive behavior. It does not contradict annotations and provides additional behavioral insight beyond them.

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 sentence, tightly packed with essential information: action, input formats, and output summary. No extraneous words, front-loaded, and every part 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?

Given the tool has one parameter and an output schema (indicated), the description covers input flexibility and output. It could be more explicit about the verdict format, but overall it is sufficiently complete 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the single parameter 'input' accepts various dependency list formats (requirements.txt, package.json, etc.) and describes the output structure. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw 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 clearly states the action (bulk pre-connect trust check), the resource (dependency set/stack), and the output (trust verdict per item + summary). It provides specific input format examples, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'check_agent_trust'.

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool (bulk pre-connect trust checks for dependency sets) and lists input formats (requirements.txt, package.json, etc.). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide direct comparisons to alternatives.

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 indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds that results are ranked by trust score, which is valuable beyond annotations. More details on search behavior (e.g., case sensitivity) could improve 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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with core purpose, no 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?

Given the tool has an output schema, the description covers the input purpose and ranking well. It could mention optionality of parameters and pagination via limit, but overall sufficient for a search 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so description compensates by listing searchable fields (name, repo, description, category). However, it does not detail the 'limit' parameter or explain that all parameters are optional. The description adds some meaning but is not comprehensive.

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 searches agents and frameworks by multiple criteria (name, repo, description, category) and results are ranked by trust score. It distinguishes from siblings like check_agent_trust or compare_agents.

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 for searching and ranking agents, but does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives. However, the context is clear.

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, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so safety profile is clear. The description adds that it returns a 'trust verdict', but does not detail what that verdict entails (e.g., score, boolean, reasons).

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, focused sentence with no redundancy or filler. Every word contributes to defining the tool's purpose and usage context.

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 adequate for a simple tool with one parameter and output schema. However, it does not explain the format of the trust verdict (e.g., boolean, string) or how to interpret results, leaving some ambiguity.

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%, with no parameter description. The description clarifies that the 'server' parameter can include server names, packages, GitHub repos, or agent names, adding meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not specify format or examples.

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 provides a 'pre-connect trust verdict' for various entities like MCP server, package, GitHub repo, or agent name. This is specific and informative, though it doesn't fully distinguish from the sibling 'check_agent_trust'.

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 indicates usage 'before connecting an AI agent', providing a clear when-to-use context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool compared to siblings like 'check_agent_trust' or 'get_agent_history'.

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