LibreLink MCP Server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying what data is returned (authentication state, token validity, expiration time), which helps the agent understand the tool's output behavior. It doesn't mention rate limits or error conditions, but with annotations covering safety, this provides good supplemental information.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key return details without any redundant or unnecessary information. It is front-loaded with the core action and immediately specifies the returned data.

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 operation) and lack of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context by detailing the returned data types. It covers the essential 'what' of the tool's behavior, though it doesn't specify format (e.g., structured object vs. raw text) or potential error cases, which would be helpful for full completeness.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (though empty). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, so it naturally meets the baseline. No parameter information is required or provided, which is appropriate for this tool.

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 specific action ('Get') and resource ('current authentication session status'), with explicit details about what information is returned ('whether authenticated, token validity, and expiration time'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'clear_session' (which terminates sessions) or 'validate_connection' (which tests connectivity) by focusing on status retrieval.

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 implies usage for checking authentication state, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'validate_connection' (which might test connectivity without returning detailed session data) or 'configure_credentials' (which sets up authentication). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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