AGR 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 an authentication requirement, which is useful context, but fails to describe other critical traits: it doesn't clarify if this is a mutation (implied by 'Create' but not stated), what happens on success/failure, whether identifiers are validated, or any rate limits. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 front-loads the core action ('Create a new list') and includes essential authentication info. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured by separating purpose from prerequisites.

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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral outcomes (e.g., what's returned, error handling), doesn't explain the relationship between parameters like 'type' and 'identifiers', and offers minimal guidance beyond authentication. For a 4-parameter mutation tool, this is inadequate.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters (name, type, identifiers, description). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints on 'type' values. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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 ('Create') and resource ('a new list in AllianceMine'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'mine_add_to_list' or 'mine_list_templates', which could involve list creation or management.

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 mentions an authentication requirement ('Requires ALLIANCEMINE_TOKEN environment variable'), which provides some context for when to use it, but offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'mine_add_to_list' for adding to existing lists or 'mine_list_templates' for template-based creation. No explicit when-not-to-use or sibling comparisons are included.

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