OpenFGA MCP Server

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 but only states the action without details. It doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation (implied but not explicit), what permissions are needed, potential rate limits, error conditions, or the format of returned data. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 phrase that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be more front-loaded with key details if expanded. Every word earns its place, but the brevity limits informativeness.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what the tool returns (e.g., model structure, error handling), behavioral traits, and usage context. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall description doesn't provide enough information for an agent to use the tool effectively without guesswork.

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 clear docs for both parameters (env and storeId), including enum values and optionality. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting, but doesn't compensate with extra context like default behaviors or examples.

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 'OpenFGA Authorization Model 조회' clearly states the action (조회/retrieve) and resource (Authorization Model), which establishes a basic purpose. However, it doesn't specify what exactly is retrieved (e.g., model definition, metadata, version) or distinguish it from siblings like 'openfga_model_write', leaving it somewhat vague compared to optimal specificity.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing a storeId), contrast with siblings like 'openfga_model_write' for modifications, or indicate typical use cases (e.g., inspecting current authorization rules). This lack of context makes it hard for an agent to decide appropriately.

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