APVISO MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions pagination and verification status, which are useful behavioral traits. However, it doesn't cover other important aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated).

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 appropriately concise with two clear sentences that communicate the core functionality and key behavioral aspects (pagination, verification status). It's front-loaded with the main purpose. It could be slightly more structured by separating purpose from behavioral notes, but it's efficient overall.

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 moderate complexity (list operation with pagination), no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides basic completeness by stating what it returns. However, it lacks details about the return format (e.g., structure of verification status), error conditions, or how to interpret the results, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

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 clear documentation for both 'page' and 'limit' parameters including defaults and constraints. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline score of 3.

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 ('registered targets (domains)'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'list_scans' or 'list_schedules', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 like 'get_target' (for a single target) or 'list_scans' (for a different resource). It mentions pagination but doesn't explain when pagination is necessary or how to handle it effectively.

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