unphurl-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by explaining the tool's behavior: it lists profiles, returns specific data (names and weight overrides), and clarifies that profiles only override specific weights while defaults apply otherwise. It also mentions use cases (cold email vs. security) to add context, though it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling.

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 functionality, followed by explanatory context. Every sentence adds value (e.g., explaining profiles, use cases, and defaults), but it could be slightly more concise by integrating some details more tightly.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is quite complete: it explains what the tool does, what it returns, and how profiles work relative to defaults. It could improve by detailing the output format or error cases, but for a list tool with no complex inputs, it provides sufficient context.

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 documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose and output without redundant parameter info, earning a baseline score of 4 for zero parameters.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('all custom scoring profiles on this account'), specifies what is returned ('profile names and their custom weight overrides'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'show_defaults' by focusing on custom profiles rather than default weights.

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?

It provides clear context on when to use this tool (to see custom profiles and their weight overrides) and explicitly mentions an alternative ('show_defaults') for viewing default weights. However, it does not specify when NOT to use it or compare it to other siblings like 'create_profile' or 'delete_profile'.

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