APVISO MCP Server

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses pagination behavior and return content (status, target info, timestamps), which is helpful. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions, leaving gaps for a tool that likely interacts with sensitive scan data.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and efficiently covers filtering and return values. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers the basics (purpose, filtering, pagination, return content). However, it lacks details on authentication, error handling, or data freshness, which could be important given the context of security scans.

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 schema fully documents parameters. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'optional filtering by status', which aligns with the 'status' parameter but doesn't provide additional context beyond what the schema already states.

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 ('List your scans') and resource ('scans'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_findings' or 'list_targets'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_scan' (singular), which might retrieve a specific scan rather than listing multiple.

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 for listing scans with optional filtering by status, but doesn't specify when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_scan' (for single scans) or 'list_findings' (for scan results). No explicit 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.