my-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'any configured prefix' which adds useful context about potential message transformation. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it has side effects, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The description is minimal but doesn't contradict any 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 extremely concise and well-structured with clear sections for purpose, arguments, and returns. Every sentence earns its place - the first states the purpose, the second explains the parameter, and the third describes the return behavior. No wasted words or redundancy.

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?

For a simple echo tool with 1 parameter and an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does, what the parameter means, and what to expect in return. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, it could benefit from more context about when to use this versus similar siblings.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and only 1 parameter, the description adds meaningful context by explaining that 'message' is 'The message to echo'. This provides semantic understanding beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't elaborate on message format constraints, length limits, or special characters that might be relevant.

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 'Echo a message back to the client' - a specific verb ('echo') and resource ('message'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'sum' or 'printEnv' by focusing on message echoing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'annotatedMessage' which might be a similar sibling.

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 'annotatedMessage' that might serve similar purposes, there's no indication of when 'echo' is preferred or when other tools should be used instead. No context about appropriate use cases is provided.

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