yazio-mcp

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond this, such as rate limits, authentication needs, or what specific settings are returned. Since annotations cover key safety aspects, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but the description doesn't enhance transparency further.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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, read-only/idempotent annotations) and lack of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it doesn't explain what 'settings and preferences' entail or the return format, which could be helpful for an agent. With annotations providing safety info, it meets a basic threshold but lacks depth for full contextual understanding.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't mention parameters, which is acceptable here. A baseline of 4 is given because the schema fully handles the parameter semantics, and the description doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.

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 ('Get') and resource ('user settings and preferences'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_user' or 'get_user_dietary_preferences', which might retrieve overlapping or related user data, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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, such as distinguishing it from 'get_user' (which might return general user info) or 'get_user_dietary_preferences' (which might be a subset of settings). There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving usage ambiguous.

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