anythingmcp

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

No annotations are provided. The description says 'Setup instructions,' suggesting an informational output rather than a live connection or mutation, but it does not explicitly state side effects or return format.

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?

One concise sentence with no fluff, and it includes the key enum values, making the tool's purpose immediately understandable.

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 instruction-retrieval tool with one enum parameter, the description is sufficient. It could mention what the instructions contain or how it relates to sibling tools, but those details are not essential.

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 already defines the client enum with a clear description. The tool description repeats the client list but adds no additional semantic detail 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?

Clearly states the tool provides setup instructions for connecting a specific AI client to AnythingMCP, and the enumerated client list distinguishes it from sibling overview/get-started/list tools.

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?

Implies use when the user needs per-client setup instructions, but does not explicitly contrast with get_started, overview, or list_connectors.

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?

The description implies a read-only, informational action (a 'how to' guide) with no side effects. Even without annotations, it is clear the tool returns instructions rather than performing system modifications.

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, concise sentence with no redundant content. It is well-structured and immediately conveys the tool's function.

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 sufficient for a tool with no parameters and no output schema. It clearly states what the tool does, though specifying the output format (e.g., text instructions) would enhance completeness.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the description does not need to elaborate on them. The baseline score of 4 is appropriate given no parameter-related information is required.

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 purpose: providing instructions on installing and running an AnythingMCP gateway. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (connect_client, list_connectors, overview) by focusing on setup guidance.

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 implicitly indicates when to use the tool (when needing to install/run a gateway). It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the distinct purpose is evident from the phrasing.

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 provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether it has side effects, or any auth/rate-limit requirements. The description only states its purpose without addressing behavior.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It contains no unnecessary words or fluff, making it appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 covers the tool's basic function but lacks details about the output or return format. Since there is no output schema, the description should indicate what the agent can expect (e.g., a list of connectors), which it omits. This leaves some contextual 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?

The input schema is empty, meaning there are no parameters to describe. Since schema coverage is effectively 100% (no parameters exist), the baseline score of 3 applies, and the description adds no parameter information because none is needed.

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 an overview of 175+ pre-built connectors and connector types, identifying the resource and action. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'connect_client' and 'get_started' by focusing specifically on listing connectors, though the verb 'Overview' is less direct than 'List'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where it is appropriate, nor does it reference sibling tools or any 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?

No annotations are present, so the description bears the responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether it fetches remote data, or if it has any side effects. While 'overview' implies a non-mutating operation, the lack of explicit transparency leaves the agent without clear expectations.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main topic (AnythingMCP overview) and briefly covers the other key points (demo endpoint, learning resources). It is concise, clear, and contains no unnecessary words.

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 overview tool, the description is sufficiently complete: it tells the agent what the overview contains (what AnythingMCP is, what the demo endpoint does, where to learn more). It does not specify the output format, but given that no output schema is defined and the tool's scope is introductory, this is not a significant gap.

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 is empty (0 parameters), so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. According to the rubric, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter-related information, but none is required.

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 that the tool provides an overview of AnythingMCP, the demo endpoint, and learning resources. It names the specific resource and implies the action of giving an overview, distinguishing it from sibling tools like connect_client or list_connectors. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'provides', making it slightly less immediate in conveying the action.

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 by stating what the overview covers, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus the alternatives (e.g., get_started, list_connectors). There is no mention of when not to use it or how it relates to other tools, leaving the selection rationale to the agent's inference.

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