codivupload-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get Post Details' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what happens if the post doesn't exist (e.g., error handling), or the format of returned details. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior beyond basic purpose.

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 extremely concise at three words, with no wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Get') and resource ('Post Details'). However, it's arguably too brief, bordering on under-specified rather than efficiently concise, which slightly reduces its score from a perfect 5.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'Details' include, how errors are handled, or provide any context about the post resource. While the schema covers the parameter, the lack of output schema means the description should ideally hint at return values, but it doesn't. This makes it inadequate for full understanding.

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 single parameter 'id' documented as 'Post ID'. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. Since schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3, as the schema adequately handles parameter documentation without needing extra details in the description.

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 'Get Post Details' clearly indicates a read operation on a post resource, which is better than a tautology like 'Get Post'. However, it doesn't specify what details are retrieved or distinguish this from sibling tools like 'listposts' (which likely lists multiple posts) or 'get_agency_media_id' (which retrieves different resource types). The verb 'Get' is generic but appropriate for a read operation.

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. It doesn't mention that this retrieves a single post by ID, unlike 'listposts' which likely returns multiple posts, or clarify that it's for post details rather than other post-related operations like 'updatepost' or 'deletepost'. There's no context about prerequisites or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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