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 states it retrieves instructions and tokens, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output format looks like (e.g., structured data or text). This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 key information (action, resource, scope). There is no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns complex verification data. It doesn't explain the return values (e.g., format of tokens or instructions), error handling, or dependencies, leaving gaps that could hinder an agent's ability to use it effectively.

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%, with the single parameter 'targetId' documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain what a target ID is or where to get it). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('verification token and step-by-step instructions'), specifying it covers all three verification methods (DNS TXT, file upload, meta tag) for a target. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'verify_target', which might be a related verification operation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a target ID), exclusions, or how it relates to siblings like 'verify_target' or 'create_target', leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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