eodly-mcp

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It does add meaningful context: the permission scope required and the fields found in the full content. However, it doesn't disclose error behavior, response format, or explicitly state that this is a read-only operation. The term 'Get' implies read-only, but more explicit disclosure would be better given the absent 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 whole description is one well-formed sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then packs the field details and authentication requirement. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description gives enough context via the field list and auth scope. It could be slightly more complete by clarifying returned structure or error cases, but given the tools rule set, it is close to sufficient.

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 fully covers the single parameter 'id' with 'The report UUID.' The description's 'by id' only restates the schema, adding no new semantic detail. Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Get the full structured content of one end-of-day report by id'. It also lists the report components (KPI status, shipped, silent, slipping, blockers), and the singular 'one...by id' differentiates it from the sibling tool list_reports.

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 conveys that this is for retrieving a single report by its id, and it mentions the 'reports:read' scope requirement. It does not explicitly name an alternative for listing reports, but the 'by id' phrasing gives a clear invocation context.

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, the description discloses the required auth scope (reports:read) and ordering (most recent first), adding useful behavioral context. It doesn't mention error cases or pagination behavior, but the description covers the key aspects for a read-only list operation.

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?

Two clear sentences: first states purpose and ordering, second summarizes content and auth scope. No wasted wording, front-loaded.

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 tool with one well-defined parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, ordering, auth scope, and content summary. It lacks explicit mention of pagination or error handling but is sufficient for a read-only list endpoint. The sibling tools are clearly distinct, so context 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?

The schema already fully documents the single parameter 'limit' with min, max, and default. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond the schema's own description, so it meets the baseline but adds no extra value.

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 'List recent end-of-day reports' with a specific resource and scope ('for the key's organization'), and distinguishes it from siblings like get_report (single report) and list_team (teams). The verb 'List' and 'most recent first' provide precise purpose.

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 clearly indicates this is for listing reports, contrasting with siblings like get_report (single) and list_team (teams), so the usage context is clear. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or direct to alternatives, though the sibling names make it obvious.

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 provided, so the description carries the burden. It states the scope requirement (team:read), what is included and omitted, making behavior transparent. However, it does not mention any additional behavioral traits like rate limits or failure modes, but for a simple read operation this is 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 extremely concise: one sentence conveying purpose, contents, omissions, and required scope. 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?

For a zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It states purpose, fields, exclusions, and auth scope. Slight missing detail on output format but not essential given simplicity.

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, so the description cannot add parameter information. With schema coverage at 100% and no params, the baseline for parameter semantics is 4 per rubric, as nothing needed to be documented.

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 lists the team roster for the key's organization, specifying included fields (name, role, department, active) and omitted details (personal contact). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_report and list_reports which focus on reports.

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 in contexts where team roster information is needed, but does not explicitly elaborate on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when needing report data use get_report/list_reports). Given the sibling names, the context is clear but not fully explicit about alternative tools.

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 information about side effects, permissions, or read-only nature is disclosed. The description only states what it identifies, not what happens during execution or what might be required.

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 conveys the core function without extra fluff. However, the presence of unclear terms ('Ealling Eodly') slightly detracts from overall effectiveness.

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 simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description should clearly state the purpose and expected outcome. It mentions identifying organization and scopes, but the unclear wording and lack of context about the calling entity or return format make it incomplete.

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 zero parameters in the schema, there is nothing to add for parameter semantics. The baseline is 4, and the description does not introduce any irrelevant parameter 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 attempts to state the tool's purpose ('Identify the... API key'), but the phrase 'Ealling Eodly' is unclear and likely a typo for 'calling entity', reducing clarity about what exactly is identified.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_report' or 'list_team'. It does not mention typical scenarios or conditions for invocation.

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