Pulse MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it's a list operation with filtering, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only (implied but not explicit), pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if no invoices exist. For a list 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 with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose ('List invoices for a product') and adds optional filtering as a concise modifier. Every word earns its place, making it 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 no annotations, no output schema, and a list operation with filtering, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values (e.g., format, fields), error conditions, or behavioral constraints like pagination. For a tool with 2 parameters and no structured output documentation, more context is needed to be fully helpful.

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 ('productId' and 'status') with descriptions. The description adds marginal value by mentioning 'optionally filtered by status', which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details 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 ('List invoices') and resource ('for a product'), with optional filtering by status. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_invoice' (singular retrieval) and 'generate_invoice' (creation). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'list_customers' or 'list_products' beyond the resource type.

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 implies usage context by specifying 'for a product' and optional status filtering, suggesting it's for retrieving multiple invoices. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_invoice' for single invoices or 'list_received_payments' for payment-related lists. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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