Pulse 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 states the action ('Delete') but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether this is destructive (implied by 'Delete'), what permissions are required, if the deletion is reversible, or any rate limits. The description is minimal and fails to add meaningful context beyond the basic action, leaving 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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly. This level of conciseness is ideal for a simple tool with a clear action, though it comes at the cost of missing additional helpful 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 (a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits, usage context, and output expectations, which are crucial for safe and effective tool invocation. The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall, the description doesn't provide enough context to fully understand the tool's role and implications.

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 the parameter 'webhookId' clearly documented as 'The webhook subscription ID to delete'. The description doesn't add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or sourcing instructions. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 ('Delete') and the resource ('a webhook subscription'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'create_webhook' and 'list_webhooks' by specifying deletion rather than creation or listing. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what a webhook subscription is or its scope, which could slightly limit clarity for users unfamiliar with the context.

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, such as when to delete versus update or list webhooks. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing webhook ID) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone. This lack of explicit context reduces its effectiveness in guiding tool selection.

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