APVISO MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behaviors: pagination, description truncation, and filtering capabilities. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions, but covers essential operational traits for a listing tool.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: first establishes purpose and key behavioral constraints, second explains filtering options. Every word earns its place, and information is front-loaded appropriately for a listing tool.

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?

For a listing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good context about pagination, truncation, filtering, and alternative tools. It could mention response format or error handling, but covers the essential operational context well given the tool's complexity.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the filtering options (severity and status) in context, but doesn't provide additional semantic details beyond what the schema already documents for each parameter.

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 ('list') and resource ('findings/vulnerabilities') with specific scope ('for a specific scan'). It distinguishes from sibling 'get_report' by noting that descriptions are truncated here, establishing clear differentiation.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: use this tool for paginated listing with truncated descriptions, and use 'get_report' for full details. It also specifies when to use filtering options (by severity or status), creating clear boundaries versus alternatives.

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