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 describes the output format (markdown content with details, evidence, guidance, and PDF URL) and the tool's purpose, but lacks information on potential errors (e.g., invalid scanId), rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's read-only. It adds some context but misses key operational details.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the first sentence clearly stating the purpose and output. Each subsequent sentence adds value: detailing the report content and PDF URL, then providing usage guidance. There is no wasted text, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, output format, and usage context, but lacks details on error handling or behavioral constraints. For a read operation with no annotations, it does a good job but could be more thorough about potential issues.

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 'scanId' documented as 'The scan ID to get the report for'. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 the full penetration test report') and resource ('for a completed scan'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_scan' (likely metadata) or 'list_findings' (partial results). It explicitly mentions the comprehensive nature of the output, which helps differentiate its purpose.

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 for when to use this tool ('for a completed scan' and 'for getting comprehensive scan results'), implying it should not be used for ongoing scans or partial data. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, such as comparing to 'get_scan' for basic info or 'list_findings' for summaries.

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