Frihet MCP Server

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

Annotations provide destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds significant value beyond this: it explicitly states the action is permanent and cannot be undone, warns about cascading effects on invoices and quotes, and emphasizes the irreversible nature. This provides crucial behavioral context that annotations alone don't cover.

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 and front-loaded with the core action. The bilingual repetition adds some redundancy but doesn't significantly impact clarity. Each sentence earns its place by conveying critical warnings and context.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description provides excellent completeness: it covers the irreversible nature, cascading effects, and permanent consequences. Combined with rich annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint), this gives the agent sufficient context to use the tool appropriately despite the complexity.

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% with the parameter 'id' clearly documented as 'Client ID / ID del cliente'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but with complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('permanently delete'), the resource ('a client'), and the method ('by their ID'), which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_client' or 'update_client'. The bilingual nature doesn't detract from clarity.

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 for usage by warning about irreversible deletion and impacts on invoices/quotes, which helps distinguish it from less destructive alternatives. However, it doesn't explicitly name when to use this vs. other tools like 'update_client' or 'get_client', though the destructive nature is strongly implied.

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