Support Service Management Mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only mentions using 'httpx public APIs' and a price, which does not disclose any behavioral traits like side effects, required permissions, or return behavior. The description adds no 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 very short but wastes space on price information and the tool name, which do not help an agent decide when to use it. It is not concise in a helpful way; each sentence should earn 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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple structure with one parameter, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain what data the tool returns, making it impossible for an agent to use correctly without external knowledge.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the required 'id' parameter. No meaning is added beyond what the schema provides (just the name 'Id').

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 restates the tool name without clarifying what specific data is retrieved. It only says 'Tool: get_support_service_management_data,' which is a tautology. The name implies it gets data, but there is no verb+resource clarity beyond that.

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 on when to use this tool versus siblings like list_support_service_management_items or search_support_service_management. The description lacks context about the tool's specific use case, such as retrieving details for a single item by ID.

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 the full burden of disclosing behavior. It says only 'Health check.' with no explanation of what is checked, whether it is destructive, what it returns, or any side effects. This is completely insufficient.

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 two-word phrase that does not serve its purpose. It is under-specified rather than concisely informative. Every word should earn its place, but this fails to convey any useful 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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a minimal description might suffice, but 'Health check.' does not provide enough context for an agent to know what the tool does or what output to expect. It is 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?

The tool has no parameters and schema coverage is 100% empty. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain what the health check does or what the empty schema implies. Though 0 parameters gives a baseline of 4, the lack of informative content reduces the score.

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 'Health check.' is extremely vague. It does not specify what resource is checked or what action the tool performs, and it fails to distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_support_service_management_data.

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 usage context is provided. There is no indication of when to use this tool versus the sibling tools, which are about support service management. The description offers no guidance on prerequisites or alternatives.

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, and the description only states that the tool uses 'httpx public APIs,' which is insufficient to disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, idempotency, or required permissions. The agent cannot infer whether this is a read or write 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?

The description is short but wastes space by restating the tool name with a 'Tool:' prefix and including trivial implementation details (httpx) and pricing. It lacks structured information about purpose, usage, or parameters, making it under-specified rather than concise.

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 complexity (1 required parameter with a nested object, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It does not cover return values, error handling, pagination, or any filtering logic, leaving the agent with insufficient context for correct invocation.

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 sole parameter 'filters' has a schema with additionalProperties: true and no description (0% schema description coverage). The tool description provides no explanation of what filters are, what keys/values are accepted, or how they affect the listing. This leaves the agent without meaningful guidance.

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 merely restates the tool name ('Tool: list_support_service_management_items') and adds non-functional details about using httpx APIs and pricing. It fails to specify what the tool actually does (e.g., lists items of a certain type) and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like search_support_service_management.

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 on when to use this tool versus its siblings (get_support_service_management_data, health_check, search_support_service_management). The description contains no context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or alternatives.

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. Description only mentions implementation detail (httpx public APIs) and price, but no behavioral traits like idempotency, side effects, or rate limits.

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 very short but sacrifices meaningful content. It is not structured with front-loaded purpose or usage guidance.

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 there are sibling tools and no output schema, the description is extremely incomplete. It omits return format, filtering behavior, and relationship to other tools.

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 has one required parameter 'query' with no description. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain the parameter but provides nothing.

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 repeats the tool name and mentions it uses httpx public APIs, but fails to specify what the search does or what it searches for. It does not distinguish it from siblings like 'list_support_service_management_items' or 'get_support_service_management_data'.

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 on when to use this search tool versus the list or get siblings. No context on use cases or prerequisites.

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