OpenFGA MCP Server

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. It only states it's a list retrieval, lacking details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or response format. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation support.

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 ('OpenFGA 스토어 목록 조회') that conveys the core purpose without waste. However, it lacks any structural elements like separation of concerns or front-loading of critical details, which slightly limits its effectiveness.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the list returns (e.g., store IDs, metadata), error conditions, or behavioral traits, leaving significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with a complex system like OpenFGA.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'env' fully documented in the schema (including enum values). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score.

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 ('목록 조회' - list retrieval) and resource ('OpenFGA 스토어' - OpenFGA stores), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'openfga_list_objects' or 'openfga_model_read', which prevents a perfect score.

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. With multiple sibling tools available (e.g., openfga_list_objects, openfga_model_read), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for this specific list operation.

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