APVISO MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes what information is returned but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, error handling, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the key action and resource.

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 minimally adequate but lacks completeness. It specifies what details are retrieved but doesn't cover behavioral aspects or usage context, leaving gaps for an agent to understand full 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% (the 'targetId' parameter is fully described in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints.

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' and the resource 'details for a specific target', specifying what information is retrieved (domain, verification status, authentication configuration). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_targets' (which lists multiple targets) and 'get_scan'/'get_schedule' (different resources), 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 when details for a specific target are needed, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'list_targets' for multiple targets or 'verify_target' for verification actions. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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