Asaas

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

Annotations indicate idempotent and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context about side effects (storing token in config vs. session storage) and explains that calling without args returns a link. It does not detail error states, but for an authentication tool, the main behaviors are well-covered.

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 functional but somewhat wordy. It front-loads the main purpose but includes extraneous details like 'MCP.AI for IDE agents (Cursor, etc.)'. Each sentence earns its place, but the text could be more concise without losing clarity.

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 no output schema and a simple authentication tool, the description covers the key usage scenarios and outcomes. It does not mention error handling or validation, but the core flow is adequately described for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 fully explains the single parameter 'token': it is a JWT for session-only login, and the tool behavior when omitted (returns login link). This adds complete meaning beyond the schema definition.

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, detailing two modes (config-based permanent and session-based) and the behavior for no arguments. It specifically uses verbs like 'log in', 'copy', 'paste', and 'call' to convey the action on the authentication resource.

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 explicit guidance on when to use each approach: adding to config for permanent connection, pasting token for session-only, and calling with no args to get the login link. It does not directly contrast with sibling tools, but the context is sufficiently clear for agent decision-making.

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?

Adds detail beyond annotations: explains return states (authenticated:true vs connect_url). No contradiction with readOnlyHint, idempotentHint.

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 sentences, first sentence gives main purpose, second adds conditional details. No waste, 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?

No output schema, but description explains both possible return states (authenticated true with empty pending, or connect_url) adequately.

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; description covers all needed info. Baseline 4 for zero-param tools.

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 'Returns connection status and URLs'. Specific verb and resource, distinct from siblings like 'authenticate' which initiates connections.

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?

Describes two usage scenarios (all connected vs missing credentials) with expected output. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use but provides good 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?

Description explains that invoke can run MCPs even if not installed, returns connect/checkout links, and that install makes MCPs permanent. Does not contradict annotations; adds depth about auth, payment, and permissions.

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?

Front-loaded with key purpose and usage; detailed but somewhat verbose. Information is well-organized but could be trimmed without losing substance.

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?

Covers main use cases, auth, billing, and privileges. Lacks details on what each action specifically returns (no output schema), and some parameters are left unexplained. Good overall given complexity.

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?

Description explains the action enum and core parameters (query, mcp_id, tool_id, arguments) via the core flow, but lacks details on limit, message, immediate, and others. Schema has zero description coverage, so partial compensation is needed but not fully met.

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 identifies itself as the official marketplace for MCPs/tools, distinguishes from siblings by stating it should be used first. Describes multiple actions and the core discovery-to-invoke flow.

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 when to use this tool (first, for any capability), when to use invoke vs install, and mentions that writes require owner/admin. Provides clear alternatives and 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?

The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. It indicates a write operation (reporting) but does not disclose consequences, authentication needs, or what the tool does upon invocation. Annotations already state readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, which the description does not elaborate on.

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: two sentences that state purpose and a key usage guideline. No unnecessary words, and the most important information is 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 feedback tool, the description is adequate but not fully complete. It lacks information about return values, confirmation, or what happens after submission. Given no output schema, more details would improve 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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate. It only adds meaning for the 'conversation' parameter (implied array for reproduction). The 'message' and 'context' parameters are not explained, leaving their semantics unclear.

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: to report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback. It uses a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes from sibling tools which are primarily system/info 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?

The description provides a clear usage guideline: 'Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction.' However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use 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 indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds that invoke 'executes a tool,' which implies potential side effects. However, it does not elaborate on behavioral traits like authentication requirements or error states. Value is added over annotations by listing actions but falls short of full transparency.

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—three short sentences that each define an action. It front-loads the core purpose ('Single entrypoint for MCP catalog.') and wastes no 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?

With 7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description should cover more. It explains the 3 actions but omits details on return values, behavior of other parameters, and how to use the 'queries' and 'arguments' fields. The tool is incomplete for an agent to use correctly without trial and error.

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 the description must compensate. It explains the 'action' parameter (enum and default) but ignores six other parameters (query, queries, tool_id, arguments, min_score, force_reindex). The meaning of most parameters remains unclear, making this a significant gap.

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 it is a single entrypoint for the MCP catalog with three distinct actions (search, describe, invoke), each with a specific purpose. It explicitly differentiates from sibling tools which have different functions like authentication or marketplace.

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 it is the main tool for catalog operations by calling it a 'single entrypoint,' but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over siblings (which are unrelated) or when each action is appropriate. The usage context is implied but not detailed.

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 and idempotentHint, clearly indicating the tool is a safe, idempotent read operation. The description adds no behavioral details beyond what annotations convey, such as potential effects or scope.

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 immediately states the tool's action and target. No redundant words or extraneous information.

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, parameterless version tool, the description fully communicates the tool's functionality. It specifies what versions are shown (MCP platform and adapter) and implies the output will be current version strings. No additional context is necessary.

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 schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description does not need to parameter details, and according to guidelines, baseline is 4.

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: showing current MCP platform and adapter versions. It uses a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('versions'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like authenticate and marketplace, which have different functions.

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 version information is needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions or prerequisites. With no parameters, usage is straightforward but lacks explicit 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?

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds context on what the state includes (installed MCPs, connection status, catalog counts), which goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand the tool's output.

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 clear sentence with 16 words, front-loading the purpose. Every word is informative, 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?

No output schema exists, but the description explains the return values (installed MCPs, connection status, catalog counts). While it does not detail structure or format, it covers the essential information needed for a simple tool with no parameters.

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, the schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on output semantics.

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 'Returns the current toolkit state: installed MCPs, their connection status, and how many catalog tools each exposes.' This is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like authenticate or connect, which are action-oriented.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, but the description implies it is for checking state rather than performing actions. The context of sibling tools provides some differentiation, but no when-not or alternative mentions are given.

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