mcp-creator

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool persists data across sessions and should be called after specific events. However, it doesn't mention authentication needs, error handling, rate limits, or what happens if parameters conflict. It adds useful context but lacks comprehensive behavioral details.

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 with two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose and usage triggers, and the second explains persistence. It's front-loaded with essential information and avoids redundancy, though it could be slightly more structured.

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 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is moderately complete. It covers usage context and persistence but lacks parameter explanations and behavioral details like error handling. The output schema mitigates some gaps, but more is needed for a mutation tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'setup steps,' 'project creation,' 'GitHub/PyPI info,' and 'persists across sessions,' which loosely relate to parameters like setup_complete, github_username, pypi_username, and add_project. However, it doesn't explain parameter meanings, defaults, or interactions, leaving significant 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 tool's purpose: 'Update the creator's profile after setup steps or project creation.' It specifies the resource ('creator's profile') and the action ('update'), and distinguishes it from setup tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_creator_profile' beyond the update vs. get distinction.

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 usage guidelines: 'Call this after: setup completes, a project is published, or GitHub/PyPI info is learned.' It lists specific trigger conditions and mentions persistence across sessions, giving clear when-to-use guidance without alternatives needed.

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