get_mcptoken

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it adds almost nothing beyond the schema: no mention of return shape, not-found behavior, or the admin permission implied by include_inlines. It only echoes the two boolean flags already documented in the schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and the key optional behavior appear first. It is tight, though it is arguably too minimal for a tool with zero annotations.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should say more about what a successful fetch returns and what a missing ID yields. It covers the surface contract ('get by ID' plus optional expansions) but leaves the agent to discover response behavior empirically.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already self-documenting, which sets the baseline at 3. The phrase 'optional inline and related data' loosely maps to include_inlines/include_related but adds no format or behavioral detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a specific MCP Token by ID'), which cleanly separates it from list_mcptoken and the mutation siblings. It never names an alternative explicitly, but the by-ID framing is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by 'by ID' versus the list sibling, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or prerequisite statement. An agent must infer that this is the single-record fetch and that related_mcptoken/history_mcptoken cover the other read needs.

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