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 a read operation ('Get details'), which implies it's non-destructive, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, error handling, rate limits, or what happens if the schedule ID is invalid. This leaves gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Get details for a specific scan schedule') and lists key attributes without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence adds value, making it appropriately sized 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 complexity (simple read operation with one parameter) and no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and key attributes but lacks details on behavioral aspects and return values, which could be important for an AI agent to use it correctly in context.

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 the single parameter 'scheduleId' documented as 'The schedule ID.' The description doesn't add any further meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Get details') and resource ('for a specific scan schedule') with specific attributes mentioned (frequency, next run time, configuration). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_schedules' by focusing on a single schedule rather than listing multiple, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 implies usage by specifying 'for a specific scan schedule,' suggesting it should be used when you have a schedule ID and need detailed information. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'list_schedules' or 'update_schedule,' nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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