Frihet MCP Server

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the agent knows it's a safe creation operation. The description adds value by specifying that it 'registers' a new endpoint and mentions event subscription examples, but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens on duplicate registration attempts.

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 with two sentences (one in English, one in Spanish translation) that directly address the tool's purpose and key requirements. It's front-loaded with the main action and includes useful examples, though the bilingual format slightly reduces conciseness without adding new information for the AI agent.

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?

For a creation tool with 4 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is adequate but has gaps. It doesn't mention what the tool returns (no output schema exists), potential side effects, or error conditions. Given the complexity of webhook registration, more context about response format or common failure modes would improve completeness.

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 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents all 4 parameters (url, events, active, secret) with descriptions and types. The description mentions URL and events as required elements and provides event examples, but doesn't add significant semantic value beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when 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 verb ('Register/Create') and resource ('webhook endpoint'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'delete_webhook' or 'update_webhook' which perform different operations on the same resource. It specifies the core action of registering a new webhook with endpoint and event subscription requirements.

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 when to use this tool ('Register a new webhook endpoint') and mentions the required parameters (URL and events). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives like 'update_webhook' for modifying existing webhooks, which would be helpful given the sibling tools available.

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