unphurl-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 implies a read-only operation ('View') and describes what data is returned, but it does not disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential errors. The description adds value by explaining the data breakdown but lacks operational details.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by bullet points for use cases. It is appropriately sized, but the bulleted list could be slightly condensed. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant 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's complexity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains what data is returned and use cases, but without annotations or output schema, it lacks details on response format, error handling, or authentication needs. It is complete enough for basic understanding but not fully comprehensive.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter information is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's output and usage. A baseline of 4 is applied as it compensates for the lack of parameters by explaining what the tool provides.

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: 'View your account usage statistics' with specific details on what it shows (total URLs submitted, breakdown by gate, free rate percentage, etc.). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_balance' by providing comprehensive usage metrics rather than just credit balance.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: 'to understand your usage patterns' and lists specific use cases (checking scoring profile, cost efficiency, reporting). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as 'get_balance' for just credit balance.

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