Paid optimizer for MCP/tool descriptions. Purchase entitlement: https://ai.impocorgroup.com/agent-commerce/buy/mcp-tool-description-qa
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| description | Yes | ||
| inputSchema | No | ||
| outputSchema | No | ||
| entitlementSession | No | Paid LIVE Stripe Checkout session id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a read-only operation, and the description usefully adds that this is a paid, entitlement-based offering with a purchase URL. However, it does not disclose failure behavior, required entitlement checks, rate limits, or what the optimized output looks like.
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 short, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes the critical commercial note in just two sentences. It is concise, though the concise wording sacrifices functional 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?
With five parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and a set of sibling tools, this description is insufficient. It does not explain expected return values, parameter semantics, or when it is preferable to sibling tools, leaving the agent with mostly name-level information.
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 description coverage is only 20%, and the required fields name and description have no schema-level explanation. The description's reference to 'MCP/tool descriptions' hints at the domain, but it does not explain how to provide inputSchema, outputSchema, or entitlementSession.
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 says this is a 'paid optimizer for MCP/tool descriptions,' which allows an agent to infer the main action is optimizing tool descriptions. However, it closely mirrors the tool name and does not specify exactly what optimization means or what the tool returns.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus siblings such as analyze_tool_description or repair_structured_output_plan. The only usage signal is that it is paid and requires an entitlement, but there is no workflow, prerequisite, or alternative-based guidance.
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.
Each tool targets one of three clearly labeled domains (tool descriptions, RAG evidence, structured output), and the free vs. paid split is explicit in most descriptions. The RAG pair (inspect_rag_evidence vs. rag_quality_report) could still be confused because both sound like diagnostic reports, but the descriptions make the distinction workable.
Five of six tools follow a clear snake_case verb_noun pattern (analyze_, inspect_, optimize_, repair_), and the domain prefixes keep the set cohesive. rag_quality_report breaks the pattern by leading with the noun rather than a verb, creating one inconsistency.
Six tools is a well-scoped set for a QA suite spanning three areas, with one free diagnostic and one paid follow-up per area. No tool feels redundant or missing as a category.
Tool-description and structured-output workflows have both a diagnostic and a remediation/plan tool, so those paths are reasonably complete. The RAG evidence path offers only inspection and a paid report, with no repair or optimization tool, leaving that track without a clear remediation step.
