APVISO MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the action (verification via three methods) but lacks details on behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, error handling, or what happens after verification. It adds some context (methods) but is incomplete for a mutation 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?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey purpose, methods, and prerequisite usage. Every sentence adds value without waste.

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 (mutation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It explains what the tool does and prerequisites, but lacks details on return values, error cases, or side effects, which are important for a verification tool.

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 already documents both parameters (targetId and method with enum). The description adds minimal value by listing the method options (dns_txt, file, meta_tag) but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond the schema's enum. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the 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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('verify ownership') and resource ('a target'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying three verification methods. It's not a tautology of the name 'verify_target'.

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 provides usage guidance by stating when to use this tool (to verify ownership) and when to use an alternative tool ('Use get_verification_instructions first to see the required values'), which is a clear prerequisite and distinguishes it from the sibling tool.

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