CrowdCent MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'switches' to a challenge, implying a state change or context setting, but doesn't describe what this switch entails (e.g., does it affect other tools, require specific permissions, have side effects, or return detailed output?). The mention of a 'Success message' return is minimal and doesn't clarify behavior beyond the basic action.

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 concise with three short sentences that cover purpose, parameter, and return value. It uses a structured format with 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections, making it easy to parse. However, the front-loading could be improved as the first sentence is somewhat vague, and the structure, while clear, is minimal without additional explanatory context.

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 complexity of a 'switch' operation (likely involving state changes), no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'switch' means operationally, potential prerequisites, effects on other tools, or details of the return value beyond 'Success message'. For a tool that might alter context or settings, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its full behavior and implications.

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 meaningful context for the single parameter 'challenge_slug' by explaining it's 'the slug of the challenge to switch to'. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this adequately compensates by providing the parameter's purpose, though it doesn't specify format constraints or examples. The baseline for 0 parameters would be 4, but here the single parameter is well-explained relative to the schema gap.

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 states the purpose ('Switch to a different challenge') which is clear but vague. It specifies the action ('switch') and resource ('challenge'), but doesn't explain what 'switch' means in this context or how it differs from similar tools like 'get_challenge_info' or 'list_all_challenges'. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about the operational effect.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_challenge_info' and 'list_all_challenges', it's unclear whether this tool changes an active context, selects a challenge for subsequent operations, or performs some other function. There are no explicit when/when-not statements or named alternatives mentioned.

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