reclaim-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 effectively describes the tool's behavior: it's a read operation (implied by 'Get'), specifies potential error conditions (404 for Reclaim-managed events), and explains the return format ('Event object with full details'). However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination, leaving some behavioral aspects uncovered.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage notes and parameter details. Every sentence adds value: the first states the purpose, the second provides critical usage guidance, and the parameter/return sections clarify inputs and outputs without redundancy. No wasted words.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, parameter meanings, and return values. The output schema existence means the description doesn't need to detail the Event object structure, and it adequately addresses the gaps from missing annotations and low schema coverage.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clearly explains all three parameters: calendar_id ('The calendar ID containing the event'), event_id ('The event ID to retrieve'), and thin ('If True, return minimal event data'). This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify data formats (e.g., integer vs. string expectations) or provide examples.

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 a single event'), identifies the required resources ('by calendar ID and event ID'), and distinguishes from siblings like list_events and list_personal_events by focusing on individual retrieval rather than listing. The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Works best with events from list_events') and when not to use it ('Reclaim-managed events from list_personal_events may return 404'), directly naming sibling alternatives. This helps the agent choose between get_event and other event-related tools like list_events or list_personal_events.

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