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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool retrieves details and checks progress, which suggests a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify permissions, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior beyond basic purpose.

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 concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that directly state the purpose and usage. Every sentence adds value: the first specifies what details are retrieved, and the second provides context for when to use it. There's no unnecessary information, making it efficient 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's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and basic usage but lacks details on behavioral aspects like response format or error conditions. Without annotations or output schema, the description should do more to compensate, but it's adequate for a simple read operation.

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.' The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't need to heavily.

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 details for a specific scan including status, target, model preset, timestamps, and whether it's a retest.' It specifies the verb ('Get details') and resource ('a specific scan'), and lists the types of details returned. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_scans' or 'get_report', which would be needed for a score of 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 some usage guidance with 'Use this to check scan progress,' which implies this tool is for monitoring ongoing scans. However, it doesn't specify when to use this versus alternatives like 'list_scans' for overviews or 'get_report' for completed results, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is implied but not explicit.

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