Sharesight MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'applies a coupon code' which implies a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, what happens on success/failure (e.g., error messages), rate limits, or if it's idempotent. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse. Every word earns its place, achieving optimal conciseness.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete behavioral disclosure, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after application (e.g., success confirmation, error handling), leaving gaps in understanding the tool's full context and outcomes.

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 'code' parameter documented as 'The coupon code to apply'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this (e.g., format examples or validation rules). With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't compensate further.

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 ('applies') and the resource ('a coupon code'), specifying it applies to 'the current user'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_coupon_rate' or 'show_coupon_code' by focusing on application rather than creation or retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'delete_coupon_code'), keeping it at 4 instead of 5.

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 like 'create_coupon_rate' or 'show_coupon_code'. It mentions 'the current user' but doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., user authentication) or exclusions (e.g., invalid codes). With no explicit when/when-not instructions, it scores 2.

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