Banco MCP

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

The description transparently discloses behavioral details: it can be called with no args to get a login link, or with a token for session login. Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true, which aligns with the description's mention of non-expiring config. No contradictions, and the description adds context beyond annotations about the login flow and token usage.

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 informative but slightly verbose; it packs multiple use cases into one paragraph. It is front-loaded with the tool's purpose and authentication methods. Every sentence adds value, but a slightly more structured layout could improve readability without losing detail.

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 simple parameter and no output schema, the description covers the authentication process well: two login methods, token usage, and a persistent alternative. It does not describe the return value, but for an authentication tool the main concern is side effects. Overall, adequately complete for effective agent decision-making.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description thoroughly explains the sole optional 'token' parameter: it is a JWT from browser login, used for session-only login. This adds essential meaning beyond the schema's bare type definition, though it could be more precise about the expected format.

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 is for authentication, with explicit instructions for two distinct methods: permanent config and session-based token. It differentiates from sibling tools by being the sole authentication tool, and the verb 'authenticate' plus detailed explanation leaves no 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 description provides clear guidance on when to use each authentication method (permanent via config vs session via token) and what to do with the generated link. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' caveats, but the context is sufficiently clear for correct invocation.

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 indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description does not contradict. The description lacks details on side effects or server behavior, but the annotation covers safety profile.

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 very concise with two sentences, no redundant information. It could be improved by adding more detail without significant bloat, but it is efficient.

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 does not explain what happens after reporting (e.g., response or confirmation). With no output schema and undocumented parameters, it is incomplete for effective tool usage.

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 only explains the 'conversation' parameter (as a JSON array). Parameters 'context' and 'message' are not described at all, leaving ambiguity about their purpose and accepted format.

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 reports bugs, missing features, or feedback, with a specific verb and object. Sibling tools are mostly openfinance banking tools, so the purpose is clearly distinct.

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 advises including the conversation array for reproduction, which is helpful. However, it does not specify when not to use this tool or mention any 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 provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds specific context about what versions are shown (platform and adapter), adding value 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?

A single, clear sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the purpose.

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, parameter-less tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers its functionality. It states exactly what versions are shown.

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 are no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details.

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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and clearly identifies the resource ('MCP platform and adapter versions'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like authenticate and report_bug.

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 retrieving version info, but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives. However, given the tool's simplicity, it is clear enough.

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