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 but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states the tool updates a schedule but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether changes are reversible, what happens to existing settings not mentioned, authentication needs, rate limits, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 purpose and lists key modifiable attributes. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating core action from details).

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 (9 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, or behavioral nuances, leaving gaps for an AI agent to understand full usage. For a tool with this level of detail, more context is needed.

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 all 9 parameters. The description adds marginal value by listing modifiable fields (frequency, timing, model preset, enable/disable), which aligns with some parameters but doesn't provide additional meaning beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Update') and resource ('an existing scan schedule'), specifying what can be modified (frequency, timing, model preset, enable/disable). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_schedule' and 'delete_schedule' by focusing on modification, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'update_finding_status' or other update tools.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing schedule ID), when to choose 'update_schedule' over 'create_schedule' or 'delete_schedule', or any constraints like permissions or system state. Usage is implied by the action but lacks context.

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