zhook-mcp-server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool lists 'recent events' and is 'useful for checking payloads,' but fails to specify key behaviors: whether it's read-only, how 'recent' is defined (e.g., time window), if results are paginated, error handling, or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with event data.

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 concise with two sentences that efficiently convey the core purpose and utility. It's front-loaded with the main action, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from usage context. No wasted words, but minor room for improvement in clarity.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 2 parameters. It covers the basic purpose but misses behavioral details (e.g., safety, data format, error cases) and output expectations. For a list operation in a hook/event system, more context on result structure and limitations 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%, with clear documentation for 'hookId' and 'limit' parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only reinforcing the purpose ('list recent events') without explaining parameter interactions or semantics like what 'hookId' refers to in context. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the 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 action ('List recent events') and resource ('received by a specific hook'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_event' (single event) and 'wait_for_event' (blocking operation), but doesn't explicitly contrast with other list tools like 'list_hooks' or 'list_destinations', keeping it from a perfect score.

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 context ('Useful for checking what payloads have been delivered'), suggesting it's for monitoring hook deliveries. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_event' (for a specific event) or 'get_hook_metrics' (for aggregated data), and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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