APVISO MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool as a read operation ('Get') and specifies what information is returned (quota usage details), which is helpful. However, it lacks details on potential errors, rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving behavioral gaps for a mutation-free but critical 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 two sentences that are front-loaded and efficient. The first sentence states the purpose with specific details, and the second provides usage guidance. Every word contributes meaning, with no wasted text, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 has no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is moderately complete. It explains what the tool does and when to use it, but lacks details on return format (e.g., structure of quota data) or error handling. For a read-only tool with simple inputs, this is adequate but has clear gaps, scoring a 3.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing on the tool's purpose and usage. This meets the baseline of 4 for zero parameters, as it adds value without redundancy.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get your current quota usage including subscription tier, credits remaining, and billing period dates.' It specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'quota usage' with concrete details. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_scan' or 'get_report', which lowers it from a 5.

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 usage context: 'Use this to check available scan credits before starting a new scan.' This indicates when to use the tool (before scans) and implies an alternative (not using it could lead to insufficient credits). However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives, keeping it at a 4.

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