iconfont-mcp

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false (mutation), destructiveHint=false (safe), and idempotentHint=true (repeatable). The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the multi-step process (Puppeteer fallback, manual login, auto-detection), mentions browser closure, storage of cookies for future API calls, and notes it may take longer due to manual login. No contradiction with annotations.

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 with bullet points for steps, a returns section, notes, and examples. It is appropriately sized for a complex tool, though slightly verbose; every sentence adds value (e.g., explaining fallback mechanisms, manual login, and timing). Could be slightly more concise but remains effective.

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 (browser automation, manual login) and lack of output schema, the description provides good completeness: it details the process, return values (success message with login status), and operational notes. It covers key aspects like authentication cookie storage and timing, though could briefly mention error handling or prerequisites.

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?

There are 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (no parameters to describe). The description appropriately explains the tool's behavior without needing parameter details, adding context about the login process and outcomes. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, and it meets this by providing relevant operational semantics.

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 specific action ('Automatically open browser to log in to Iconfont and obtain authentication cookie') and distinguishes it from siblings like 'iconfont_login' (likely manual) and 'iconfont_check_login' (verification). It explicitly mentions the resource (Iconfont) and the outcome (authentication cookie).

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 explicit guidance with 'Use when: "I want to log in without manually copying cookie"' and distinguishes from alternatives by specifying this tool opens a browser for secure login, unlike other login methods. It clearly indicates when to use this tool versus other login approaches.

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