CrowdCent MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool lists 'recent submissions' and describes parameter behavior, but lacks critical details: what 'recent' means (timeframe, pagination), authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether it's read-only (implied but not stated). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is 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 appropriately sized and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by organized sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value - no redundant or unnecessary 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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple single parameter, the description covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics adequately. However, it lacks details about the return format (beyond 'dictionary containing list'), error handling, or what constitutes 'recent' submissions. For a listing tool with minimal structured context, it's minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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 description adds significant value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains the 'period' parameter's purpose, provides concrete examples ('current', 'YYYY-MM-DD'), and clarifies it's optional. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 with 'List recent submissions' - a specific verb ('List') and resource ('submissions') with a temporal qualifier ('recent'). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_submission' or 'list_all_challenges', which would require explicit comparison for a score of 5.

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 implies usage through the parameter explanation (filtering by period), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_submission' (which appears to retrieve a single submission) or 'list_all_challenges'. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives are provided.

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