barevalue-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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions listing 'recent orders' but doesn't specify what 'recent' means (timeframe), whether results are paginated (implied by parameters but not stated), authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behaviors. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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 two concise sentences with zero waste: the first states the core purpose, and the second provides usage context. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every sentence earning its place by adding value.

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 3 parameters with full schema coverage but no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and usage but lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, 'recent' definition, error handling) that would help an agent use it correctly. For a list operation with no output schema, more context on return format would be beneficial.

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 already documents all three parameters (page, per_page, status) with descriptions and constraints. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the 'status' enum values or pagination behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'List' and resource 'recent orders with their status', making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'barevalue_submit' (creation) and 'barevalue_status' (single status check) by focusing on listing multiple orders. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'barevalue_webhooks_list' which might also list items.

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 implied usage context: 'Useful for checking on multiple orders or finding a specific order.' This suggests when to use it (bulk checking/searching) but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives like 'barevalue_status' for single-order checks. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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