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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that 'The target must be verified before it can be scanned,' which adds important context about prerequisites. However, it doesn't describe what happens on success/failure, error conditions, or response format, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the purpose and prerequisite, the second provides essential follow-up guidance. There's zero wasted text and it's front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good context about the verification prerequisite and next steps. However, it doesn't explain what the tool returns or potential error conditions, leaving some gaps in completeness given the tool's complexity.

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 fully documents the single 'domain' parameter. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but since the schema coverage is complete, 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 specific action ('Register a new target domain for scanning') and resource ('target domain'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'create_scan' or 'create_schedule' which handle different resources. It provides a complete picture of what the tool does beyond just the creation action.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Register a new target domain for scanning') and provides clear follow-up guidance ('After creating, use get_verification_instructions to see how to verify ownership'). It also implicitly distinguishes from alternatives like 'verify_target' by explaining the verification is a separate step.

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