zhook-mcp-server

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 what information is retrieved ('delivery URL, metadata, and recent metrics'), but does not cover critical aspects such as authentication requirements, error handling, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only or has side effects. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient, warranting a score of 2.

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 without unnecessary details. It is front-loaded with the core action and includes specific examples of what is retrieved, making it highly concise and effective.

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 complexity (a read operation with one parameter) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, usage context, and return values. This results in a score of 3, as it meets basic requirements but has clear gaps in 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'hookId' fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of hook IDs or validation rules. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Get detailed configuration for a specific webhook, including delivery URL, metadata, and recent metrics.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('webhook'), and scope ('detailed configuration'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from siblings like 'get_hook_metrics' or 'list_hooks', which is why it scores 4 instead of 5.

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. It does not mention when to use 'get_hook' over 'list_hooks' for a single hook or 'get_hook_metrics' for metrics, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. This lack of usage context results in a score of 2.

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