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 adds valuable context about the failure condition (targets with associated scans cannot be deleted), which is beyond the input schema. However, it doesn't cover other behavioral aspects like permissions needed, side effects, or error handling, making it only moderately transparent.

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 two sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose, and the second adds critical behavioral context. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it highly efficient.

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 destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is minimally complete. It covers the main purpose and a key failure condition but lacks details on permissions, return values, or error responses, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

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 'targetId' clearly documented. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 without compensating for gaps.

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 verb ('Delete') and resource ('a target'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'delete_schedule' or 'create_target' beyond the resource name, which prevents 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 provides implied usage guidance by stating 'This will fail if the target has any associated scans,' which suggests when not to use it. However, it lacks explicit alternatives (e.g., what to do if scans exist) or comparisons to siblings like 'delete_schedule,' leaving room for improvement.

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