APVISO 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. It discloses important behavioral traits: the tier requirement (Business/Enterprise), that scans run automatically, and the recurring nature. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects (e.g., resource consumption, billing implications), error conditions, or what happens if the target becomes unverified.

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?

Two sentences that efficiently convey the core purpose, requirements, and behavior. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. The structure is front-loaded with the main action followed by important constraints.

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?

For a creation tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the what and basic constraints but lacks information about return values, error cases, or the relationship between frequency parameters (dayOfWeek, dayOfMonth). Given the complexity, it should provide more behavioral context.

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 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions 'specified time and frequency' which aligns with frequency/hour/minute parameters but doesn't provide additional semantic context about parameter interactions or dependencies.

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 ('Create a recurring scan schedule'), the resource ('for a verified target'), and distinguishes it from siblings like create_scan (one-time) or create_target (target creation). It explicitly mentions 'recurring' which differentiates it from one-time operations.

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 clear context about when to use this tool ('Requires Business or Enterprise tier') and the automatic execution behavior. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives like create_scan for one-time scans or update_schedule for modifications.

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