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 implies a mutation operation ('Update') and describes the purpose ('track remediation progress'), but it does not cover critical aspects like permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, error handling, or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, consisting of only two sentences that directly convey the tool's purpose and usage. Every sentence earns its place without any wasted words, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 complexity (a mutation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and usage but lacks details on behavioral traits, error responses, or output expectations. While it meets minimum viability, it does not provide enough context for safe and effective use without additional assumptions.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters ('findingId' and 'userStatus' with enum values). The description adds minimal value by mentioning the status transitions, but it does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema specifies, such as format details for 'findingId' or constraints on status changes.

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 specific action ('Update the status of a finding') and resource ('finding'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_findings' or 'update_schedule'. It provides a precise verb+resource combination that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use this to track remediation progress') and provides context on the status transitions (e.g., 'open → in_progress → fixed'). However, it does not specify when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like 'list_findings' for checking statuses, which prevents a perfect score.

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