mcp-builder-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool 'Returns selected endpoints with required and dependency annotations and a summary', which gives some output information. However, it doesn't describe what 'resolve' entails operationally, whether this is a read-only or mutating operation, what happens to the stored bundles_result, or any error conditions or side effects.

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 concise at 4 sentences. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Step 4 of 6. Resolve the user's selection...'), followed by prerequisites, parameter hints, and return information. There's minimal wasted language, though the workflow step numbering could be more integrated with the purpose statement.

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 complexity (6 parameters, workflow tool, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It provides workflow context and some parameter hints but lacks crucial information about what the tool actually does operationally, the meaning of the color choices, how customizations affect the result, and the format of the returned data. For a tool with this many parameters and no structured documentation elsewhere, more detail 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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 6 parameters (only 1 required), the description must compensate but provides limited help. It mentions 'choice' parameter values ('green | yellow | red') and that 'customizations' can 'add/remove of endpoints', and references 'bundles_result' usage. However, it doesn't explain 'spec', 'openapi_input', or 'input_type' parameters at all, leaving most parameters undocumented.

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 states the tool 'Resolve the user's selection (green | yellow | red) and optional add/remove of endpoints' and 'Returns selected endpoints with required and dependency annotations and a summary', which provides a basic purpose. However, it's somewhat vague about what 'resolve' means operationally and doesn't clearly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'propose_endpoint_bundles' beyond being 'Step 4 of 6'.

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 clear context about workflow sequencing: 'Requires step 3 (propose_endpoint_bundles)' and 'Completes workflow step 4'. It mentions using 'stored bundles_result from step 3 if not provided', which gives guidance on parameter usage. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name specific alternatives among siblings.

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