Return the URL for a specific MiOffice application by name or search term. Includes pricing info so the user knows the cost before invoking.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| toolName | Yes | Tool name, MCP id (e.g. "mio_face_swap"), or search term (e.g. "voice clone") |
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 a URL and includes pricing information, but it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, how it handles invalid names, or whether any side effects occur. For a simple lookup tool this is basic but adequate.
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, front-loaded with the core action and resource. It includes a useful additional detail (pricing info) without any filler, making it very concise and easy to parse.
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's low complexity, one parameter, and no output schema, the description adequately covers the key purpose and return value. It does not detail the exact format of the URL or behavior on errors, but such information is not strictly necessary for this simple lookup-oriented 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?
The input schema already provides a detailed description for the toolName parameter, including examples and accepted types, so the schema coverage is 100%. The tool description repeats this information in prose without adding additional semantic detail, so it does not significantly enhance what is already available.
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 function: returning a URL for a specific MiOffice application based on a name or search term. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by its role as an 'opener' rather than a processing tool, and the verb+resource structure is specific and unambiguous.
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 when a user needs the URL for a MiOffice app, especially before invoking it, and notes the pricing info is included. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like mioffice_list_tools or mioffice_pricing_info, nor does it state when not to use this tool, so guidance is only implicit.
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.
Multiple tools have overlapping purposes, such as mio_ai_remove_background and mio_ai_remove_background_pro, mio_ai_video_subtitler and mio_video_auto_captions, and mio_ai_enhancer tools targeting similar media. Agents would struggle to pick the correct tool when several appear to do nearly the same thing.
Naming conventions are mixed: most tools use a mio_ prefix with category, but some use action-based names (mio_image_compress), others use format-pair names (mio_image_avif_to_jpg), and a few use a different prefix (mioffice_list_tools, mioffice_pricing_info). The lack of a uniform pattern makes the tool set harder to navigate.
With 134 tools, the server is massively over-scoped. Even for a broad workspace suite, this count exceeds practical limits and creates significant selection overhead for agents. The number is more appropriate for a full product catalog than an MCP tool surface.
The tool set covers a wide range of PDF, image, audio, video, scanner, and AI operations, so most common tasks are represented. However, there are notable gaps for a 'workspace studio,' such as no document creation or spreadsheet editing tools, and the redundancy between overlapping AI tools suggests the surface is not thoughtfully curated.
